Comments

POLEASE, some designer somewhere design some decent, attactive clothes for heavier and/or older women. The baby boomers are aging and many are overweight (including me). I long for stylish clothing which will fit me without looking like a big sack. Weight gain is a fact of life yet no designers are moving in that direction. We have money. We need decent clothing. I hope to never again see the word "tunic" in a clothing ad. POLEASE HELP US!

Songbird: Your comment mentions an important issue. Women with the disposable income to buy expensive fashion wear are disproportionately older women, and thereby also heavier women, yet top designers often do not have designs for these women unless they happen to be thin. They also prefer to use teenage girls to market to older women, the preferred age range of the models being in the early- to mid-teens, though public pressure forces them to minimize the use of girls in their early teens, and only the well-established teenage models go on to still model in their twenties. These observations again refute the notion that the choice of high-fashion models’ typical looks stems from public demand or marketing considerations.

I actually happen to think that Deborah from Karupspc is really attractive. I'm a straight girl so what do I know? But she has an extremely pleasant face. I think if you are going to show an example of how Nordics are attractive, she would be a good face for it. Why is she taken out? Her face is so pretty and feminine!

I think the addition of these, especially Uldouz, Shaghayegh, Kim and Kristin would get rid of people saying "All of the women you said are attractive are just trashy x-rated pornstars, compared the 'classy' fashion models".

As a white guy from America who absolutely loves round rear ends I can only conclude that your country must be very homogenous if you are an ass man and think that Nordic women have the best. Having extensively studied the female form in all shapes and sizes for years my conclusions are that Northeast Asian women tend to have narrow hips and flat booties. Black women tend to have incredible ass curves, but rather narrow hips. Women from the Mediterrenean region, parts of southeastern Europe, and the Indian subcontinent have some of the best, with both hip and rear end curves. Northern European women have wider hips, on average, than Asian women but are almost as flat. These are just tendencies, of course, and there are bootylicious women in every ethnic group. Your attractive women have rounder asses than most Nordic women but there's not one who compares with this Argentine woman.

Dude I agree with you fashion models are too masculine but Fenny's tiny waist and incredibly round hips and ass are much more feminine than all of the chicks in your attractive women section.

Northern Europeans don't have flat behinds. We have less big behinds than some - but far from all - latin/hispanic women, since we generally have less black genes than they do, but flat, no.

Asians often seem to have flat behinds, though, and generally underdeveloped, childlike bodies with small hips. North Europeans generally have good hips and normal, softly rounded behinds.

If a man has a fetish for swollen, very protruding "primate" behinds he will obviously find anything other than the half-black looking behinds Jennifer Lopez style to be inadequate, but his taste is not in line with that of mainstream men's.

Penelope Cruz;

It is a myth that latin women have better behinds than N. Europeans. I've been at plenty of beaches in Italy during the time I lived there and there wasn't any noticeable difference. The black influence in Southern Italy would probably mean there are more Lopez style behinds in the far South, though. I lived in the North.

Men can decide for themself who they find attractive and if they find hispanic or blacks as having a better behind, you can't change their preference by insisting the opposite just because you are jealous and insecure.

Someone's preference is none of your business and unfortunately isn't going to change, no matter how much you insist and cry.

Of course they can. However, saying mediterraneans have better behinds and that Northern Europeans have flat behinds is a blatant lie I have seen over and over, and someone apparently has to set the record straight.

Latin women on average don't have better or worse behinds than Northern Europeans. It can be bigger and wider since they are shorter and chubbier, but better looking or less flat - no. They do have much shorter legs, though. lol

Some of the biggest latin sex symbols have less than impressive behinds. Strange. In my experience this is also true for many mediterraneans. Black genes tend to add to the protruding looks of a behind so naturally those "primate" behinds are not seen as often in Nordics. I bet you'll find them rather frequently in Puerto Rico, though.

I don't mind at all the appreciation of latin beauty as they can be strikingly beautiful in their own way, even though they don't look really good as often per capita that other women in other parts of Europe do. What I do mind is when blatantly incorrect things are being said about Nordics/Northern Europeans.

The biggest sex icon in Italy, Monica Bellucci;

Cucinotta;

Elisabetta Canalis;

As for jealousy I think that one is the pot calling the kettle black. All these lies spread about Nordics all the time..oh..why could that be? Is it really just ignorance, I wonder. A country that regualrly and often produces these kinds of women don't envy - it is the cause of envy, let's face it. :)

Scandinavian women tend to have very masculine figures, as in larger upper body, larger rib cages, flatter butts and shorter legs. They are big boned and happen to be one of the biggest women nationwise. This is the statistics according to clothes sizes that sell in Scandinavian countries!
Blacks, Hispanic and East Indian women tend to have more curvier figures.

I live in Northern Europe and have a problem finding clothes that fit me well because I stand 5 feet 6 inches. And thanks to my mixed ethinicity (asian and spanish I have a small bone structure despite my height ( size 8 in UK, size 2 in US not sure about that) and measurements of 36 34 36 (I am slim but very curvy).

Why don't you post a video of your own fat, flat arse and then I will post mine as well if we have to end this arguement.

Emily,
I've lived in Spain and traveled extensively in Italy. One quality I found bizarre is that men in those countries love round rumps far more than Northern Europeans and the latter's descendants in the US, Canada etc. but Italian women especially (and Spanish women to a degree although not so much) are more obsessed than American women with dieting down to skeletons. However when Italian and Spanish women don't diet obsessively they tend to have curvier butts, hips and thighs than Northern European women. There are surely Scandinavian fatties out there (btw the term "fattie" when applied to a slender babe with a round firm ass is a compliment) as well as Italian, Spanish and Greek flacas but the tendency remains. Monica Bellucci, like most actresses, probably starves herself to be acceptable to directors. And this site argues that preternaturally feminine and curvy Nordic women are ignored by the fashion and film industry. Why do you assume the situation is different in Spain and Italy? Might I add that the Nordic woman in your picture isn't clearly showing her ass ;)

Now, it is very common for Brazilian and Puerto Rican beauties to have African descent but Argentina has always been the whitest country in Latin America settled primarily by Spaniards and Italians with a few Northern Europeans and Jews. And their women have stupendous asses! The woman in my photo above is from Argentina as is this one who is famed for having the best ass on the Internet. With all due reverence here's Keyra Augustina.

Her face does not look black or Northern European at all, she looks very Mediterrenean.

I defy any heterosexual man, "lifetime exclusive" or not, to watch her dance and not get turned on.

Because it is far from Europe there's less influence from the masculinizing fashion world and the women are plumper and juicier than Spanish and Italian women. Emily can you find a Scandinavian woman with hip, thigh and butt curves like that? Let's see Asian women are "infantile" because they're usually not as curvy as Nordic women and Latinas look like "primates" because they're usually curvier than Scandinavians. You are the jealous one here. Everyone has their tastes but to refuse to see the distinctive beauty in all races shows a tightly closed mind which is very unattractive no matter how round and fat your ass may be.

"Jennifer Lopez style to be inadequate, but his taste is not in line with that of mainstream men's."

You must not know any black or Latin American men! Jennifer Lopez may not be as popular with white American men as, say, Jessica Simpson but I have yet to meet a white dude who doesn't find her attractive.

I'm jealous of primate behinds? LOL I find it difficult to be jealous of something I find aesthetically unappealing. I'm not a jealous person since I have nothing to be jealous of.

Now, Jennifer Lopez style behinds are unappealing to me since they are too primate-like for my taste. A softly rounded and curvy backside is very common in Northern Europe, as well as in Southern Europe, there is virtually no difference there.

Generally, I find primitive features unappealing and gracile and evolved features the most appealing.

I have lived in Italy as well as in my home country Sweden, and seen many countries in Europe, and I recognize a false statement when I see it and that's why I corrected you.

No, S. Europeans don't have curvier and less flat behinds than N. Europeans, diet or no diet. I lived in Italy and saw MANY women on the beaches there, and elsewhere of course, and there is no difference.

The flat butt pictures of latin celebrities confirm this. Their biggest celebrities have flat behinds. Italians are primarily breast fixated. My pictures confirm this, since the celebrities all have good and nice breasts, even if their behinds are rather ordinary, I'd say.

Since they are shorter and chubbier than N. Europeans they will sometimes have bigger behinds. That in itself does not make them more attractive, unless size in itself is important, as I suspect it could be for a butt-fetishist, maybe.

The normal-sized and rounded behind of North- and South Europeans is the one I, and most people, find appealing.

As I said before, the more primate-like behinds of Lopez are most probably linked to black genes, and therefore is probably most easily found in those parts of the world where great black racial mixing has taken place. Puerto Rico, Latin America etc.

Now, Jennifer Lopez is attractive and I can see why men find her appealing. To me personally, Jennifer is attractive in spite of her grossly exaggerated behind - not because of it. People can be very attractive even though they may have a some feature that is less than perfect. This is something that is often forgotten here, I think.
People often evaluate each body part and ignore the overall, complete picture.

Okay, Emily the Scandinavian bombshell obviously can't accept the challenge to show herself because she is too stunning to do so.

I live in the Northern Europe and I know for a fact that the clothes there typically tend to hide the figure more.

It is more common to see Southern European, Hispanics and Asians in shorts, mini skirts and more figure hugging dresses because their figure carries it off better while the clothes in Northern Europe are typically voluminous and tend to hide saggy bellies and cover fat thighs full of cellulite.
When I go out clubbing you wouldn't catch me without a designer evening dress, matching clutch purse and stilettoes, no wonder I get too much attention in fact a bit too much.

I find it really laughable that you think Northern Europeans have the best figures, no wonder they have to hide it behind all those huge granny clothes.

Emily, did you never get your ass pinched in Italy? Men in the south of France, southern Spain, and southern Italy love big round asses. They dig breasts too but they love booty. In any case you're a Nordic supremacist like Erik so methinks you and he should meet, marry and have multiple Nordic babies to counteract all the Nordic men settling down with Asian and Russian women and all the Nordic women marrying black and Italian men. I have a feeling that if either of you found happiness with a partner the lonely insecurity that fuels this site would disappear and it would no longer be updated. See love can conquer all!

Here's a woman from France with a fantastic curvy booty. You still haven't produced a Swedish lass with a round, firm ass.

Booty man: Vile arguments are not welcome. If you have something relevant to say, you can say it without ad hominem/character assassination. There is no Nordic supremacism or lonely insecurity that fuels this site. Some malicious people before you have tried your bait: assert that many Northern Europeans are ending up with other ethnies, and thereby trashed the site with issues that it is not concerned with. The published data show nothing of the sort. Northern Europeans overwhelmingly end up with other Northern Europeans; Emily has mentioned the politically incorrect facts about most of the Northern Europeans who end up with non-Europeans, which I do not wish to repeat.

It is not difficult to find non-overweight Northern European women with even more prominent backsides, but these big backsides are not attractive to most Europeans and hence I have not bothered featuring them at this site. You can find them in various American publications catering to African-American men: smooth girl magazine, show magazine, etc. Check out the following, all featured in Show magazine: Bianca (www.myspace.com/love4bianca), Jenna Shea, Carlyn, Susette Moyers (www.lazygirls.info/Susette_Moyers); and check out show magazine’s April 2008 black lingerie white models issue. I could name others.

Like I said, you are highly cognitive dissonant so you will argue your point even though it might be very, very misleading and contrary to popular opinion or science.

You post fake myspace pictures and even then you can tell the women have got huge frames, I am sure these women have had to diet, diet and diet or run a marathon but once they stop doing that, then? Back to being big and obese.

The English are known to be podgy, Scandinavians are known to be big boned which is a good thing for the men because they do have a bigger upper body torso and narrower hips but then this means Scandinavian women are going to have a similar figure as well. Mediterraneans are slimmer in general so their women are going to be more feminine.

You can't argue that the Scandinavian men are masculine and the women are feminine because a masculine Scandinavian man will pass on his genes and have a masculine Scandinavian Daughter

This is how science works and genes are passed on, the daughter gets two X chromosome one from the father, one from the mother who in turn would have got hers from her father. So Scandinavian women will be masculine and with the way evolution works, they will continue to get more and more masculine.

Everyone knows that Scandinavian women are Amazons so you are arguing against science and popular opinion so don't throw a tantrum and save yourself the effort of pasting fake and
misleading pictures and accept what is reality.

Scandinavians are not known to be big boned or masculine. In fact, Scandinavians are known to be the some of the most beautiful women in the world. That kind of reputation you don't get if you are masculine and big boned, with short legs. Scandinavians are known for being gracile, slender and feminine. Many women are not that tall. I am 5'9 and I'm taller than most. The "amazon" bit sounded like something an envious asian midget would say, no offense.

Scandinavian faces are often soft and feminine, without the big hooked nose so often seen in other parts of Europe, and many have absolutely gorgeous blue, green or grey eyes and naturally blonde hair. Scandinavians often tan very well in spite of having fair skin.

I think you deliberately paint a false picture of Scandinavians because you are a spanish/asian mix yourself with a huge self-esteem problem and a massive envy. No one writes so much ridiculous inaccuracies without having some kind of weird motive. Maybe you have Scandinavians confused with Slavs or Finns (who are not Scandinavians) who are coarser, bigger boned and less gracile, so I reserve judgment for now.

Swedes;

As for lack of curves and short legs that problem is rather found here;

the more photos you post of Scandinavians the more I am convinced they are not really feminine people, or if they are feminine they have HUGE bone structure. Swedish men and women are known to have the largest heads ( I believe this is a good thing because it comes with a big brain), however it shows up in the bone structure. Many of the women you posted have huge heads, big cheekbones, big foreheads and it just makes them look a bit more masculine. Sorry, just the truth.

Erik,

The more on come on this site, the more obvious it is how biased you are. This isn't science and although you bring up a lot of good points about femininity and even how "Nordic" women have many more feminine features, you still fall short. A lot of the stuff you write is crap. Period. You keep defending Emilys shit as well claiming you have to because she agrees with you. No you don't. She agrees with youfor the wrong reasons. However, I believe you both have the same agenda now.To convince YOURSELVES by convincing the world you are somehow superior because you belong to a certain group (because you can't stand on your own), because in truth you feel like shit about yourselves.

Erik,
Those first two women you posted only showed the view from directly behind. The acid test of a booty's true curvaceousness is the
silhouette. These women seem otherwise attractive but you can't say for sure that they have curvy butts. I never said that Northern European women cannot have shapely backsides. There are curvy, average, and flat women in every group but I see more "skinny fat" (shapeless and untoned) butts among Northern European women than any other group of white women. Northeast Asian women on average are flatter but because their hips are narrower it looks more proportional. Northern European women have wider hips but wide hips need a round booty to fill them out otherwise they just look matronly and not sexy. BTW, Filipino women have shapelier butts than other Asians.

As for whether or not it is possible for a white man to like large buttocks, see the link below about how hip hop and increased Latin American immigration have changed America's perception of them. Now I personally have a greater appreciation for them than is common among white men but it is not unknown for a person to have unstereotypical tastes. Do you like Chinese food by any chance? I've known white men who like white and Asian women but not black or Hispanic, I've known white men who like white and Hispanic women but not black or Asian, I've known black men who like white, Hispanic, and Ethiopian women but not black or Asian, I've known Hispanic men who like white, black and Hispanic women but didn't like Asian etc. I find women of all races attractive.

Arnold Schwartzenegger is about as Northern European as anyone aside from Max von Sydow and he's an ass man!

Godis: Scandinavians are not known for having large heads. Northern European faces tend to be smaller than in many shorter non-European populations. Scandinavian heads also tend to be narrow in front view and elongated in side view.

You have accused me of bias but have not substantiated it or proven the bias by coming up with evidence to the contrary. And don’t bring up your well-refuted contentions about self-esteem.

Voice of Unreason: So you don’t think you are as stupid as Emily is? I agree with you. You are stupider by far. Just because a population has more feminine women does not mean that its men will also be more feminine. Have you ever entertained the notion of population variation in the extent of differentiation in secondary sexual characteristics? There are propulations where the women look more feminine and the men more masculine compared to others. In populations with more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, you will find the women to be more feminine looking on average, the men to be more masculine looking on average, disproportionately find the most masculine-looking men, disproportionately find the most feminine-looking women and disproportionately find the most masculine-looking women also (because of sexually antagonistic selection).

Don’t teach me how science works. Whereas I have much to learn, I have nothing to learn from you regarding the scientific matters discussed within this site.

I have not featured a link to fake myspace pictures. The women in the links really have the kind of backsides you see. You can see a lot of their pictures online and in different publications, and also their videos.

And look at you describing your looks (also elsewhere)! For one who has been taunting Emily about not showing her pictures, why should we believe that your description of your appearance is correct? If it were correct, you wouldn’t be a fraction as pissed as you are at this site.

Booty man: The pictures you have posted fail the acid test also because they are not silhouettes or profile views. But I also gave you links, mentioned some names and some sources. Check out the pictures of these women and their videos and see the curvaceousness for yourself.

Among European women, Northern Europeans are not deficient in the backside’s femininity.

I didn’t write anything on whether it is possible for a white man to like large buttocks. The part of your comment addressing this issue was a waste of time. I said that most Europeans don’t like very protruding backsides in women.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not Northern European and he doesn’t look like one. His head is flattened on the back, his mouth is protruding, etc.

LOL You really are desperate to find faults, aren't you? So now Scandinavians are big headed? Maybe that's because we have bigger brains, then? lol

Look, when you take photos from certain angles the head will appear larger and the proportions will be somewhat distorted. Anyone who is familiar with modeling and photography knows this. As for big heads, again, the asians are the ones with the real problem in this regard. Their tiny stature often makes the head seem too large. That's true in most cases, regardless of race, by the way.

Scandinavian students;

Italian students;

Italians;

Traveler's Digest made a list of the most beautiful women in the world. Not "proof" of anything, and the guy writes some silly things, but an opinion shared by many men, I think;

"Countries With The Most Beautiful Women

Some of you may have read my article on cities with the most beautiful women, this however is about the countries with the most beautiful women. It's always possible to find a city with beautiful women in a land of not-so-amazingly beautiful women. These places on the other hand, are entire countries with beautiful women.

10. Denmark
I've been to Denmark many times, & I can say that I've not found anything rotten there to date. And definitely not the women, the women here are as striking as they come. A lot like their Swedish neighbours, the women of Denmark are remarkable in their beauty & their charm.

9. Netherlands
Dutch girls have to be some of the world's most amazing. Sure I'm only ranking the country as number nine, which is good when you take into account how many nations there are on this earth. But this list is only taking beauty into consideration, Dutch women have more than that, they're complete, they're incredible, they're the kind of girls who hang out drinking wine in the park with you randomly philosophizing, & they're also the kind of girls who will makeout with you in that same very park. (If they like you of course, this is not a poor country, it's about who you are, the girls here aren't impressed by status or anything like that.)

8. Estonia
Ahh & now the Eastern European countries come into play. Estonia is a very small country, & seemingly insignificant, but it's astonishing if only because of the girls. Beautiful they are, you can find some of the world's best looking women in any nightclub in Tallinn's Old Town, on any day of the week.

7. Ukraine
The Black Sea coast of the Ukraine is world famous for gorgeous girls in scantily clad bathing suits. And rightly so, but more so than that the entire country is filled to the brims with beautiful women. From Odessa to Kiev, the Ukraine beauty.

6. Belarus
It's often been said that Eastern Europe is the valley of beautiful women, & in that context Belarus is one of the more fertile spots. Sure the country may be drab, dreary, & socialist architecture reigns supreme, but the women are to die for. They manage to turn this country from extremely boring, to a place you never want to leave.

5. Latvia
Where I sit as of the time I write this article. Latvia is just wondrous. This little Baltic nation, such a small country, with hardly no international fame or reputation, is home to some of the world's most beautiful girls hands down. Drop-dead beauties roam the streets, & they're friendly too, can't beat that now can you?

4. Bulgaria
Bulgaria may as well change its name to "Beautyland" as it is a proverbial theme park of beautiful women. Everything from dark hair to light, & from bright eyes to well brighter eyes. Bulgaria is filled with amazing women all the way from the mountainous region of the capital Sofia to the beautiful beaches on the Black Sea coast.

3. Russia
This list has pretty much read out as an Eastern European geography lesson, & with good reason. Slavic women are the most beautiful overall in the world, & Russia is the big leagues as far as Eastern Europe goes. The women here are not only beautiful, they're seductive. With one glance they can capture your heart, they look at you as if they know they could do anything in the world & you'd like it, & basically that's true.

2. Argentina
Argentina is definitely the cream of the crop as far as Latin America, well really as far as the whole Western Hemisphere goes. Argentineans, specifically those of Buenos Aires are a people made up mostly of Italian migrants from the 19th & early 20th century, but I must say that they must have been migrants from Milan all with super model genes, because the people here are stunning.

1. Sweden
Of course Sweden lands at the number one spot. How could it not, it's Sweden for goodness sake! The women here are so ridiculously beautiful that it's hard to breathe sometimes when in their presence. Blond hair, & bright eyes, personalities that are beautiful to match, what more could anyone ever ask for?"

Swedes;

Cities with the most beautiful women;

"10. Montreal, Canada
Ahh the flavour of France but with the convenient location of Canada, Montreal is truly one of the world's best cities. So many colleges & universities, so many women, & with fashion sense, a very good quality may I add. The best part of course being that the women all speak French, the language of love. So my friends, take a trip to Montreal, and find a beautiful leather trench coat wearing beauty that will serenade you in French all night long.

9. Seoul, South Korea
Every guy loves Asian women, I'm pretty sure that's a scientific fact and Seoul is home to quite a few of them. The city is a large, cosmopolitan, & vibrant city. It's home to some of the best nightlife in Asia, so you'll also not be lacking in opportunities to meet people. After a trip to Seoul, whether you like Asian women or not, you'll come down with a case of the 'yellow fever'.

8. Amsterdam, Holland
Of course Amsterdam must make the list. This city has women more beautiful riding past on bicycles than other cities have going by in chauffeured cars. Dutch girls are amazing in so many ways, they're trendy, as well as cool, they're fun, & also friendly. They're the kind of girls that you just want to date for a very long time.

7. Tel Aviv, Israel
Israel has some of the best looking women in the world, something about those green eyes that are just particularly attractive. But beware as in Israel women over the age of 18 are required to have been in the military, this of course means that if you sleep with an Israeli girl's best friend, she may very well kick your ass, while equipped with an Uzi. Sure it's a longshot, but it could happen.

6. Caracas, Venezuela
Caracas the capital of Venezuela, Venezuela the country with more Miss Universe Pageant titles than any other nation, so you know it's capital is going to be raging full of beautiful women. Women so beautiful that they make Brazilian women look like trashier counterparts. I speak honestly when I tell you that I know what type of undergarments runner up to Miss Venezuela wears (let us just say little flowers), what I cannot begin to tell you however is the amount of fun you will have if you take a trip to Venezuela, say hello to Hugo Chavez for me.

5. Moscow , Russia
Mother Russia is home to some of the world's finest women, the Moscow subway alone has more beauties than most of the United States alone, & I live in the United States :( It's not only the regularity of tall, blonde hair, blue eyed women that make it so great, it's also the amazing level of friendliness that you will find. It's a definite unique experience when what seems the world's most beautiful woman is staring your way, it leaves you wondering whether you have something on your shirt, but you in fact probably don't, they could very well think you're hot.

4. Varna, Bulgaria
Many of you may not have heard of Bulgaria, some of you may not know where to find it on a map, but you have all been there, in your dreams at night when you sleep. A land of cheap vodka, no drug laws, mechanical bulls on the beach, & waterslides. A land of cafes with inflatable furniture, the land of g-strings, & see through pants, the land of topless sunbathing. But more importantly than all others the land of the world's most beautiful, charming, & stunning women, oh how I love them so.

3. Buenos Aires, Argentina
Buenos Aires should be designated the capital of the Western Hemisphere, not only for it's wealth of beautiful women on a scale unlike any other Latin Country, even the extraordinary Venezuela, but for being the best city this side of Paris. Buenos Aires is amazing, where else can you sing Madonna hyms by the burial site of Evita, answer nowhere. More importantly where else can I get invited to model scout competitions, invited to Fashion TV parties, & kiss a 6"4 supermodel, well not too many other places let me tell you.

2. Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen has surely got some of the world's most beautiful women, & also some of the friendliest, maybe even a little bit more sex orientated than their Swedish counterparts. For instance, I had just arrived at the Copenhagen train station, it was late, I was tired, I must've been looking good, for I noticed a hot Danish girl looking my way, so I looked hers, then I smiled, then she pointed me out to her friend, & next thing you know I had an entire high school classroom full of girls yelling at me, things, yelling things, good things. This alone is why I say Copenhagen is one of the best, it's like Amsterdam but instead of hookers, Copenhagen has porn stars.

1. Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm is a city filled with the best looking women in the world, women so good looking that when you walk in to a 7-11 you will swear that you have just walked into a reality TV set, What Happens When Supermodels Work at A Convenience Store? Yes I know it's a long name, but hey it's true. Better yet the women are super friendly, & extremely educated, they speak English with English accents, they start making you wonder whether England in fact had good looking women but they're all on working vacations in Sweden, turns out they're not as England doesn't have but in fact they're all just really well studied Swedish girls."

Wow my standards must be very sky high!!! As beautifull as the swedish/scandanavian women are if thats the most beautifull in the world then the women I must be thinking of must literally be sky high the most heavenly

Godis is right, if you want to be taken seriously you need to be unbiased and stop twisting facts to suit your comments, this is never going to happen because we know that you are a racist and probably always will be.

A tall couple will generally produce tall children, a short couple will generally produce short children. Similarly, a masculine Scandinavian couple will generally procreate masculine children as in masculine sons and masculine daughters.

Your statement that the masculine man will produce a feminine daughter is similar to saying that a midget will have giant children. Can you get any more stupid?

Scandinavian women are masculine, they have bigger torsos, broader shoulders, flatter butts than most other ethnicities. I am afraid that's the fact as it stands and nothing you say can change it or twist it.

As for my pics and videos, look who's talking? Someone who has devoted his life to attacking the appearance of women and has taken a lot of care to stay hidden and never show himself. Should I trust a person with mental health issues? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you, much less have you stalk me, so no thanks!
Anyone else is welcome, they only have to post their email address or request me to confirm what I've said so there ya go.

Oh what a sweetie, there she goes, posting tripe as usual, tripe that no one bothers reading because it's too long and it's been copied from somewhere. Something along the lines of 'Look at me!!!!!!!I am an attention seeking desperate Swede"

How is my big girl doing today? I like Amazons, they are so cool, big boned, manly shoulders, flat butts, long torsos, short legs, saggy bellies, cellulite thighs.

Just the kinda girl a boy would take home to his mother, why do they ignore a big girl like you and date Asian or Latin women?

Erik,
I never said that Northern European women cannot have curvy booties. They definitely can, but I see more "skinny-fat" (flat and untoned) butts among Nordic women than any other white women. The women you posted had great butts but they were not attractive or feminine at all otherwise, they look very tall with large heads and frames and as Voice of Reason noted probably have to diet obsessively and really hit the gym to keep from being obese. Here's Marian Rivera, a half-Spanish, half Filipina actress with delicate bone structure, a very cute 5'4 height and notable hip and butt curves for her size that are still proportional. And she's not odd looking.

It is much easier to find women with big butts and othewise feminine features among non-Nordic women.

Now attractive women tend to look somewhat similar even if they have different ethnicity: they usually have big eyes, full lips, small or gracile bone structure and are slender with fat in all the right places. Plain or ugly women are usually thus in different ways depending on ethnicity. Here's a plain Nordic woman, Zara Phillips granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain. She is not ugly but no one would mistake her for a Nordic beauty like Nicole Kidman.

She has the typical problems of plain Nordic women: a straight masculine body with boxy shoulders and square hips. Even though she has large breasts in the photos where she's wearing shorts she has the shapelessly flat butt that I see very often among average looking Nordic women. Now she can look nice when she dresses up as long as she covers her shoulders.

But she cannot pull off short hair to save her life. Her small eyes, thin lips and square lantern jaw make her look like a boy without feminizing long hair. On the other hand a woman with a very feminine face can wear hair like a boy and still look beautiful. Audrey Tatou does not have a very feminine body aside from her petite stature but her face is so feminine that she looks great in short and long hair. She even looks better in short hair because long distracts the eye from her delicate features.

Now it's a little unfair to compare a plain Nordic-type woman to a beautiful French woman, so here's a less attractive French actress
Roxane Mesquida.

Her face is not as feminine as Audrey's and she looks better with long hair but her large eyes help her pull off short hair much better than Zara.

Now a man with a strong preference for Nordic features might prefer a plain Nordic woman to an attractive non-Nordic one but that doesn't make the former more feminine.

Ah-nuld isn't Northern European? According to my map Austria is in Northern Europe. Do you think he is an Ainu? There are tons of people in Germany, Britain, Ireland, Finland and yes even Sweden (Emily! Don't jump! It will be okay!) whose ancestors have been there for centuries and who don't have Nordic looks. So I guess whether or not a person is Northern European depends solely on looks to you, not geography.

Voice of Reason I personally would like all of the ladies who frequent this site to send in their butt photos so we can closely examine them and determine who has the curviest. Especially you if you look like Marian Rivera.

Booty man (classy nickname, by the way), is a person who even called Erik a "white nationalist". He obviously has an agenda and is clearly biased and anti-nordic. As far as I'm concerned his credibility is virtually zero. Nordics don't have the shapeless and flat bodies he imagines or wishes. Their only "problem" is the fact that most other women simply don't compare and it causes a lot of hostility, obviously.

Nordics remain the most feminine, gracile and beautiful women. Latin women often have much too short bodies and legs and sometimes downright terrible faces, with coarse, masculine and unflattering facial features.

Their often pronounced semitic looks (Middle Eastern influence, no doubt) with huge, hooked noses and swarthy colours are not feminine, nor attractive.

Now, there are some very nice looking latin women, they are far from being the majority, and per capita don't come anywhere near Nordic women.

Okay, as booty man has requested me, here's my picture finally to prove I haven't been lying. It's a screen capture from my youtube page and the face is hidden for reasons of anonymity.
I am sure this is going to be judged harshly by Emily and Erik but it's quite obvious I have a decent figure. Thanks to my Asian and Latin genes.
I am married so I am not slim as before and I don't starve myself and visit the gym at all to get this kind of figure.

Measurements have been taken and recorded.Swedish people literally have the largest heads. I am not referring to a high forehead, I have a really round dome shaped forhead, my lower face is smaller than my forehead due to my low cheekbones and lower set eyes. This is what gives me a soft childish appearance I used to despise. I am not referring to a high forehead, I am referring to literally the whole head from the chin and jaw up to the top of the head and also the circumference. In that aspect Swedish people have the largets heads. Just look it up, it is recorded and published in plenty of scientific journals. It probably won't be that hard to find, I had to look it up when I did a project on head size in relation to intelligence. There is a small correlation between the two although not significant. Still, I'd rather have that small advantage.

"Godis is right, if you want to be taken seriously you need to be unbiased and stop twisting facts to suit your comments, this is never going to happen because we know that you are a racist and probably always will be."

Erik is unbiased. You and godis are the ones who cannot accept that reality is not what you want. I have seen many asians and latin women, and generally speaking the the former ones lack curves and look like pre-pubescent girls, and the others have masculine facial features, semitic noses, swarthy colours and short, chubby bodies.

There are always exceptions to the rule and they may look fantastic, but generally speaking that is why they cannot compete with North Europeans.

"A tall couple will generally produce tall children, a short couple will generally produce short children. Similarly, a masculine Scandinavian couple will generally procreate masculine children as in masculine sons and masculine daughters."

A feminine Nordic woman will not necessarily produce masculine children. You conveniently forgot the feminine Nordics, and my pictures show there are plenty of them - and indeed plenty of masculine Latin women who probably need to shave off their moustache evey day, not to mention under-developed, childlike asians without any curves whatsoever.

You lost credibility when you said asians have better curves than Nordics. Everyone knows it's not the case. 100% asians have the worst bodies of any race when it comes to feminine curves. All men know this, you see. Your envy simply shone through.

"Scandinavian women are masculine, they have bigger torsos, broader shoulders, flatter butts than most other ethnicities. I am afraid that's the fact as it stands and nothing you say can change it or twist it."

In your dream world - not in the real world. An asian/latin half-breed with fake blonde hair (wannabe Nordic) full of envy. lol No one takes you seriously, I'm afraid.

"As for my pics and videos, look who's talking? Someone who has devoted his life to attacking the appearance of women "

Erik doesn't attack anyone. He states what is feminine and tries to make us appreciate femininity instead of the homosexual fashion ideal, and just because someone might not fit the bill doesn't mean he attacks them. Telling the truth - without the blatantly fake anti-white political correctness - makes him honest instead of a hypocrite.

"and has taken a lot of care to stay hidden and never show himself. Should I trust a person with mental health issues? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you, much less have you stalk me, so no thanks!"

I'm sure Erik has no desire to be anywhere near you. Another fruit of your impressive imagination, I assume.

I agree, one shouldn't trust someone with mental health issues, and that's why you have little credibility. Your problem is you admitted here earlier that you came here because you had some problems. Well, one can tell. Your behind doesn't interest anyone, except booty man, who might add it to his collection. Congratulations. That must make you feel so classy.

Biased and anti-Nordic? While you the women you post are attractive none of them "do it" for me. Their looks are too lacquered over and have nothing unique or interesting about them. That first blonde looks prepubescent as opposed to the more grown up ones you usually find, and if I saw all of those girls in a club, I'd approach the ones in the fifth photo wearing the black and floral tops. I like all kinds of women but to the extent that I have a type it is no taller than 5'6, defined yet feminine bone structure, slender with curvy hips, thighs, and butt and exotic looks are a plus. I've heard from friends that there are a lot of beautiful women in Sweden, so I don't doubt that, but the girls you post just aren't that hot to me.

I didn't say that Asians have better curves than Nordics. Asians have smaller bodies over all and their breasts are much flatter and their hips are narrower and their butts are somewhat flatter. But to my taste they tend to be more attractive because I don't really care so much about breasts and their flatter butts fit their slimmer hips. Wide hips with a flat butt, a type very common among plain and ugly Nordic women, is unattractive to me. Now, Nordic women with flat butts who are otherwise attractive can still look good over all but they're not very sexy to me. Being proportional is the key. The half Asian girl I posted has curves that are nice and round but proportional to her petite, delicate frame, but this is probably due to her Spanish ancestry and would surely be flatter if she were 100% Asian.

Unclassy? I love female curvature and I am unapologetic. One can allude to and take pleasure in eroticism and the beauty of women, and perhaps be a little naughty without being a pig. In contrast it is very difficult to constantly call others ugly and claim that everyone else is jealous of you without sounding like some belligerent train wreck on the Jerry Springer Show, and you have not pulled it off.

As for your statement about Voice of Reason she already had that still on youtube and she's wearing a proper dress so why shouldn't she post it? And if she had problems before we all have and she's now confident enough in her looks to post her photo on a page full of incredibly critical people. Which you have not because you're... classy? Too many uptight girls try to pass themselves off as classy and call the girls that are out there living life and having fun trashy sluts. There's little question to me which one you are. Go ahead, prove me wrong and post your butt shot.

Voice of Reason you have nice curves that fit your body very well and fill you out everywhere they should. Emily does have a bit of a point in that at times you can sound a bit histrionic here though certainly not in her overwhelmingly over the top way. Sometimes you ladies get so emotional that it's very easy for you to be goaded and go over the top. So give Brunhilde enough rope to hang herself.

Erik, take a look at actress Mila Kunis (That 70s show when she was younger, and also in the recent movie "Getting over sarah marshall"). I've heard she has implants and I'm not sure that she will have the optimal feminine curves, though she does still have a good body, but her face is probably the most feminine, attractive face I've ever seen.

Also, what is your take on Angelina Jolie, Olivia Wilde, and Megan Fox? I think they are all similar looking and overall very sexy but the former 2 with strikingly contrasting male and female facial features, like with Kim Kardashian- very female eyes, but some masculine bone structure, etc.
Either way, I think that look is definitely coveted by the great majority of men- well, no question.

To my knowledge there's no objective measure of the rear end, like bra size, so all we have are subjective opinions. So if I say that Nordic women tend to be flatter than others you can't prove me wrong and vice versa. So there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

"but these big backsides are not attractive to most Europeans and hence I have not bothered featuring them at this site."

So you admit this site is about Europeans and their (on average) tastes and not about science. Not surprising.

Natasha,
I know you didn't ask me but although her butt is as flat as most Hollywood actresses Mila Kunis is very attractive and her beauty is underrated in Hollywood. Megan Fox is hot though she has had a ton of plastic surgery and according to what I've read wears contacts to get her striking ice blue eyes. Angelina Jolie is kind of mannish looking though I still think she's pretty.

Kim Kardashian's face and body combine to form my ideal type, but like most people who get plastic surgery she looked better before.

Kim has a long, somewhat pointy face and her shorter nose balanced it out far better than the long and pointy nose she later acquired.

Olivia Wilde looks like a man. She almost looks as though she could crush walnuts with that jaw of hers.

I seriously suspect this was the photographer's idea because she has never worn short hair in any other circumstance. She probably knows that her masculine jaw really needs long hair to keep her from looking like a transvestite, as she does in that photo.

Histrionics? I think all women are drama queens to some degree, comes with the territory.
I may have been a bit over the top, this was because I was speaking to a guttermouth and needed to speak in the language they would understand.

Emily,

I am sure you are foaming at the mouth with envy but I am not going to get into another mud slinging contest with you, maybe I am too unclassy to stoop to that level lol.

You might be attractive and be very good looking but people will judge you on the basis of your personality, so being opinionated and a gutter mouth will actually overshadow the fact that you are good looking. I try and be a nice person generally, having good looks is a plus as it makes people more approachable to you. That doesn't mean I can't be bitchy and mean (I think you already know that).

As for blonde hair, I am sure there are a lot of peroxide blondes in Sweden too. This is another racist perception again, people change their hair colour because they are wanna be Nordics. I change my hair colour like I change my outfit, this is either because of boredom or fashion and not because I want to be Nordic. I am honey blonde at the moment and I have gone from jet black to platinum blonde to Red previously.

To be honest, I think I have spent far too much time arguing on this website, I was sat at home because I was recuperating from a wisdom teeth extraction so probably won't post much anymore now that I am better.

"Biased and anti-Nordic? While you the women you post are attractive none of them "do it" for me. Their looks are too lacquered over and have nothing unique or interesting about them. "

Nordics are unique. The ones you like are the ones who are banal. Cheapness, vulgarity and latin primate style can be found anywhere.

By the way, I think it's funny..we have two fake blondes here - Godis and Voice of Reason - who constantly diss Nordic girls. Could it get any more transparent than that?

"Unclassy? I love female curvature and I am unapologetic"

Well, your taste does seem unclassy but no one should be asked to apologize for having bad taste. South American women with primate behinds tend to look cheap and vulgar. Vulgarity is something I see as distinctly unfeminine. That is, a girl who has huge curves but who looks primitive or cheap will not be more feminine than the one who has softer curves. On the contrary.

That is why Grace Kelly is a lasting beauty icon and the others all too often forgettable. Grace, style, romanticism and softness are things that last. Maybe since they are so hard to come by. Comparatively few women in the world have that style, and it is very much Nordic in essence.

.

If size in itself was what mattered we would have a latin/black female ideal. We haven't. The beauty ideal has always been the North European, more feminine and sweeter beauty. Men in general love romantic girls - not someone who looks like she came from a cheap pornographic magazine.

This is not to say a woman should lack curves. She shouldn't. No one likes the curveless body of an asian girl, unless they go for the pre-pubescent look, which I think in itself should raise questions since it runs contrary to Western women's mature and adult bodies.

However, a primitive and vulgar look is not feminine. A good example is Beyonce at the Oscars, who tried to pull off some kind of Nicole Kidman Moulin Rouge imitation, ending up looking embarrassingly out of place. Her thighs looked like they could smash cement.

Wasn't it Barack Obama who said "a pig with lipstick is still a pig"? Well, in that case it could be said that an ape in a dress is still an ape.

Latin women lack the soft femininity of the Nordics. That's why they can seldom pull off bleaching their hair blonde. They often end up looking grotesque, or in bad cases like transvestites, since the colour in itself is too feminine, romantic and soft for them, which makes their coarser features stand out more. This goes for many Slavic girls, too, as often seen in Romania, Hungary etc., where many horror examples can be found.

"So you admit this site is about Europeans and their (on average) tastes and not about science. Not surprising."

Oh, the bitter tone of an anti-European man. Talk about hanging himself. You do a pretty nice job at that, I think. The more you write the more you reveal your anti-Nordic, anti-European stance.

That is all well and good. Just don't ask to be taken seriously as an unbiased observer. You are far from it, and I think it goes beyond looks. The negativity seen in your words now have a subtle, but nasty and malicious tone. As long as we know you are blatantly anti-European and anti-Nordic we can take what you say in that context.

European women of Northern European descent, and to some extent Eastern European descent, are the most feminine ones and the most gracile ones, and to a majority the most beautiful ones, so why not use them as examples? This site is about femininity, and no, the size of the breasts and behind in itself does not equate femininity. Sorry to disappoint you.

There are many vulgar, coarse and primitive women who have enormous curves, but who look anything but feminine. Of course you are unable to see and understand the difference, so much at this site is probably incomprehensible to you.

Science, and the preference for European women as a beauty standard, is not at odds. There is no conflict there. Trying to pass off some of your primate examples as feminine would however be at odds, since there is precious little femininity there and a lot of vulgarity and primitiveness, which go against the essence of femininity.

If not, surely, black women with huge, protruding behinds in some tribes in Africa must surely be the most feminine ones, not to mention those women who need to carry their breasts around in a wheelbarrow.

Emily, have you ever seen a gorilla? They do not have rounded buttocks.

The gorilla has a flat nose, while Kim's is long. The gorilla has thin lips while Kim's are full and sexy. Please name one specific feature of hers that resembles a gorilla or else brush up on your metaphors and find a better comparison.

Nordics are unique? True anthropologically but here in America blond girls like the one you post are in every magazine selling tooth paste and bubble gum and that particular type (even if the girls need peroxide and silicone to achieve the look) end up in Playboy. The over-saturation of this type of girl in the media makes the look boring to me. Now they're clearly attractive to a lot of men but I am not one of them. Everyone has their tastes and we all don't fit into a box. I am not "anti-European" even if my taste differs from yours. Grace Kelly was a beautiful woman, but to my taste she is "pretty but not sexy". A woman can be sexy and elegant but Grace Kelly is not to me. Here are some beautiful, elegant, sexy European woman.

This one was born in Britain to American parents but cannot be left out

"Nordics are unique? True anthropologically but here in America blond girls like the one you post are in every magazine selling tooth paste and"

Certainly. Since they are the more feminine and beautiful, in an angelic way, that others cannot emulate even when they try desperately with fake blonde hair, blue contacts, etc.

Toothpaste is related to freshness and purity, and therefore Nordic women are more suited since they seem more pure, feminine and clean. Advertising works like that. They also often appear in commercials for detergents and for things related to motherhood and babies.

Brunettes and non-Nordics in general are used for liquor, sexy underwear and chocolate commercials, for example, for the same reason. They seem less pure, romantic, sweet and feminine.

Now, Kim has an utterly masculine and coarse face, totally lacking any kind of grace, femininity and softness. She has that unflattering dark pigment around the eyes and most probably a moustache she shaves every day. Without makeup she looks like a man, and not a feminine one, either.

Her almost black eyes are proof of what I said before. The colour adds hardness to her already hard and coarse features. She looks very Arabic, sprinkled with black and maybe Mexican/asian admixture. Like many of mixed race her face is disharmonious, as if it couldn't decide what it wanted to be.

She is chubby with short legs, fat thighs, a ridiculous and ugly behind, and I suspect fake breasts. I am amazed, quite frankly, that anyone could be so stupid as to try to pass her off as some kind of ideal.

You have a fetish for primate behinds. You are therefore not capable of properly judging female looks. Your opinion and perception is clouded by the fetish you have. As for sexiness that is not the same thing as vulgarity, a swollen primate behind or brown hair. You have a fetish that you try to pass off as sexiness, but this site deals with normal men's taste, and with femininity.

I posted them because I've posted Latin American women and Kim is Armenian so I wanted to underline that I am not biased against Europeans. Even you can't claim that Grace Kelly is curvier than Sophia Loren.

"They also often appear in commercials for detergents and for things related to motherhood and babies."

Porn is full of bottle blondes so not everyone agrees with you. Soap and baby clothes are sterile, infantile things that don't relate to adult romance and eroticism.

" liquor, sexy underwear and chocolate commercials, for example, for the same reason. They seem less pure, romantic, sweet and feminine."

No liquor, sexy underwear and chocolate are luxurious and sensual. Less pure, I suppose, but who'd want to drink detergent instead of brandy?

As for romance and sweetness you don't see how true feminine sexuality, as opposed to the masculine style in porn, is far sweeter, more loving and ineffably more romantic than uptight good manners.

"You have a fetish for primate behinds. You are therefore not capable of properly judging female looks." First off how is liking large buttocks any different from liking large breasts? Secondly almost all men have fetishes, sexual quirks, and fantasies that give high minded women nightmares but they are the rule rather than the exception. A common theme of this site is that gay men are incompetent judges of female beauty, but since you aren't sexually attracted to women why are you any better.

Emily I think there's a lot about men and what men want in women that you don't understand.

I posted them because I've posted Latin American women and Kim is Armenian so I wanted to underline that I am not biased against Europeans. Even you can't claim that Grace Kelly is curvier than Sophia Loren.

"They also often appear in commercials for detergents and for things related to motherhood and babies."

Porn is full of bottle blondes so not everyone agrees with you. Soap and baby clothes are sterile, infantile things that don't relate to adult romance and eroticism.

" liquor, sexy underwear and chocolate commercials, for example, for the same reason. They seem less pure, romantic, sweet and feminine."

No liquor, sexy underwear and chocolate are luxurious and sensual. Less pure, I suppose, but who'd want to drink detergent instead of brandy?

As for romance and sweetness you don't see how true feminine sexuality, as opposed to the masculine style in porn, is far sweeter, more loving and ineffably more romantic than uptight good manners.

"You have a fetish for primate behinds. You are therefore not capable of properly judging female looks." First off how is liking large buttocks any different from liking large breasts? Secondly almost all men have fetishes, sexual quirks, and fantasies that give high minded women nightmares but they are the rule rather than the exception. Erik may just as easily be judged as having a fetish for hypergirly girls. A common theme of this site is that gay men are incompetent judges of female beauty, but since you aren't sexually attracted to women why are you any better?

Emily I think there's a lot about men and what men want in women that you don't understand.

You cannot compare pornography to advertising, and you were the one who brought up advertising, and I explained to you why it is that blondes are preferred in many types of commercials.

Now, pornography is full of fake blondes since blondes are and will remain "What gentlemen prefer" but the real deal is often unavailable. They are sexually the most desireable women to most men, so again, your preference for coarse and masculine Arabic/black women with huge and protruding behinds is not shared by most men.

"As for romance and sweetness you don't see how true feminine sexuality, as opposed to the masculine style in porn, is far sweeter, more loving and ineffably more romantic than uptight good manners."

It is you who fail to understand that feminine sexuality AND romance and sweetness are not antagonistic. It is possible to offer both. Take away sweetness and femininity and add vulgarity and masculinity, and you have Kim Kardashian, and that's the way you like it.

For you, sexual stimulation means there should be no class, no sweetness and no femininity. You want to "do" someone who is primitive, vulgar, and basically a grotesque caricature of a feminine woman. You want a sexual object you don't have to feel any respect for. If they have some kind of respect for themselves they would probably be called uptight by you.

This site deals with femininity, and femininity in women and objects for sexual stimulation are not always the same thing. You are proof of that. There are also men who are sexually stimulated by shoes or lifeless objects, children, animals, boys, etc. Does that make their objects feminine?

In short, femininity and your sexual fetish are not the same thing.

I have NEVER said anything positive about pornography. Why do you throw in strawmen? You are the one who has chosen a woman who might very well work in pornography. She is masculine, hard and vulgar, and anything but feminine. She also looks like she would go with anyone, and that is what is appealing to men like you. That's what turns you on.

No one claims Grace Kelly is curvier than Sofia Loren. What's your point? However, no one could claim Sofia is more feminine than Grace. Again, you miserably fail to understand femininity, and equate breast size with femininity.
Sofia's coarse face, masculine jaw and crocodile mouth make her much more masculine and coarse, like most mediterranean women, compared to Nordics.

Maria Grazia Cucinotta would be a better example;

Like Sofia, she has a masculine face but it also has at least some feminine qualities to it, and it is more gracile. She too is curvy. Again, you were wrong before. Italian men are breast fixated. The behind is of secondary importance. If a girl has an enormous behind and tiny breasts she will be of less interest to them than if she has large and well-formed breasts and a flattish behind. Their own stars confirm this.

Oh my god....I think I will puke...sorry, not from all these women or animal pictures you posetd here...but from your texts and things you say!I am shocked! This site must be deleted and destroyed becouse it is the most ugliest site ever and is full of discrimination and full of ungraceful comments! How can you say that latin, nordic, or whatever woman are ugly if you judge only by few lousy pics...thats rubish! You cant tell things about these nations if you dont know anything at all. By the way, most of them porn star women you put here had multiple plastic surgeries...plus many of them Hollywood or whatever stars had plastics done....so how you can call it a idolised beauty? Rubish!
Like this so called Kardashian- she had so many plastic surgeries we cant even count them alltogether! What a hell...wake up and put back your eyes in your eyesockets, dont judge with your balls or whatever in that matter....for women and men in this website, there are no real nordic, latin, or whatever people in this f****g world, becouse they mixed with other f******g races all the time...like Scandinavian wikings used to make other nations who they cought in their way made as slaves...even latin people were registred in their slave population.So they mixed...if you would go to like Russia- you would see not only Slawic people but aswell Latvian, Lithuanian, Mongolian, Kazakstani, and whatever you know...becouse, THE WORLD IS MIXED AND THERE ARE NO PARTICAL RACE PERSONOFICATIONARY SIGNS THAT WOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE RACE. Like me,I have latvian, polish, jewish and whatever mix in me and well you cant judge me by the means of your imagined racial charecteristics!!!
I know so many scandinavian women, who have been born there and their parent have been born there but who are tiny and small framed and with nice curves, so just dont bullshit here with all your comments. You need to stop!Think again....those pictures you put in are just pictures, and even if the women are living in the particular country can be mixed with different races aswell, so this site should be more about feminine beauty as the main question ...not to judge races by their looks, becouse people are different, even latin person have small bum and big bone structure, I have seen lots of latin women like that in University where i study! So,just study more about history and...well, study more,dont sit so often in internet downloading silly porn photos or whatever in that matter! lol
Thank you for listening!
P.s.... believe or not but most of people who live in Nordic and Slavic countries are jewish or have jewish ancestries...so.... think again!Study history my dear critics!

Emily, I don't know how old you are but you should look into the romantic life of Halle Berry. She is an African American so probably rather ugly and "primitive" to you but she is considered by most people to be one of the most beautiful stars in Hollywood.

Despite her stunning looks an early boyfriend beat her so badly that she lost most hearing in one ear. She's been married twice and both husbands cheated on her. Her last husband sought treatment as a sex addict! Her beauty and her Oscar couldn't keep her ex-husband faithful, but she seems happy now with her present boyfriend. The point is that beautiful women get beaten, cheated on, and dumped every day. How a man treats depends almost solely on his character. If you are ugly a good man will still be faithful and respectful. If you a beautiful a selfish, self-absorbed man will treat you as badly as he thinks he can get away with. In fact many such men reject beautiful women and actively seek unattractive women because they think (usually correctly) that unattractive will be insecure enough to tolerate multiple forms of abuse and degradation. However if a beautiful woman shows herself to be insecure these selfish, uncaring men are quite happy to inflict the same misery on her. I have seen stunningly gorgeous women who were abused or neglected as children end up with the most vile men imaginable reenacting the abuse of their upbringing.

In short Emily you need to put your obsession with beauty into context. Beauty may give you a wider pool of men to choose from but it doesn't make picking a good man any easier.

I can DEFINITELY see Kim being someone's ideal. She has a great body. I do however want to point out that I don't believe she's had plastic surgery. If you do, can you provide proof of it? I know that her mom has, and both her sister Kourtney and her mom have had breast implants. So it wouldn't be that far fetched.

What I want to know is why having a round, voluptuous and perky ass is somehow primitive? It is indeed not primitive, but one of the core features that stands out in a woman to show her fertility status and health. Indeed, it is said that over time as our ancestors started walking on two legs, prominent breasts started evolving to show the woman's fertility from the front. Therefore, if big butts aren't feminine then neither are big breasts.
Those pictures posted of Kim are probably some of the worst ones yet. I recall seeing a few of those as advertised "no makeup Kim Kardashian" types of pictures, and we all know that those are the most unflattering of all pictures taken of celebrities. Kim does NOT look half bad without makeup!
Anyone who says she has a "coarse" face has clearly not seen her on television. She has big beautiful eyes and very long eyelashes, and although she puts on way too much makeup, she generally has a very nice bone structure and complexion. She does not have THE most feminine of faces (like Mila Kunis, for example), but she is still a very feminine woman and absolutely gorgeous. She literally lives off of her looks and she's making a lot of money doing so! That Grace Kelly looks like nothing special to me.

Emily,
"Now, pornography is full of fake blondes since blondes are and will remain "What gentlemen prefer" but the real deal is often unavailable."

In the 70s porn was full of brunettes with natural breasts and pubic hair, like Maria McBane, and men got off just as much. Men will get off with nearly any naked woman. My judgement is that among many cultural changes men became less able to deal with the carnal reality of women and the dyed hair, plastic surgery and waxed muffs of these pornbots made them more acceptable woman-fearing losers.

Most men do seem to prefer blondes, all else being equal, but A. all things rarely are equal and B. I don't care what other men like. Grown men are secure enough to deal with the reality of other men's tastes.

I also don't think you understand what a fetish is. A true fetishist needs a certain object or quality for sexual gratification. I wouldn't kick any of the women you post out of my bed but they are simply not my preference.

"For you, sexual stimulation means there should be no class, no sweetness and no femininity. You want to "do" someone who is primitive, vulgar, and basically a grotesque caricature of a feminine woman. You want a sexual object you don't have to feel any respect for. If they have some kind of respect for themselves they would probably be called uptight by you"

I wouldn't date Kim Kardashian because she is a slut but that has nothing to do with her looks. Almost all women in Hollywood, indeed almost all actresses are promiscuous. I'm sure you're a big fan of Ingrid Bergman, but she became pregnant by an Italian film director when she was married to a Swedish doctor in an almost career-killing scandal. I'm sure Sophia Loren had affairs but at least she was discreet. Still the feminine sexuality of women is poorly compared among actresses.

I can tell you that in my travels in Spain and Italy if I ever saw a girl dead drunk and dancing topless on a bar she was inevitably American, British or German. I never once saw that among Italian and Spanish women and according to my Italian relatives only the absolute lowest of the low class Italian women do that, while college educated women from America, Britain and Germany eagerly get drunk and go home with strange men. I've never interacted with Scandinavian people, but the Nordic women from those countries that I've known engage in that sort of behavior no matter what they look like. Italian and Spanish women only drink a little bit and are more feminine and modest. Most demand courtship before they sleep with a man. There are of course sluts in every ethnic group but Latin women are gifted in subtly expressing a sultry, refined feminine sexuality where are as the trend among American, British and German women is too only "be sexy" by acting out in coarse vulgar ways that are really more masculine sexuality than feminine sexuality.

As for Sophia Loren's face she is a bit lantern jawed but like Audrey Tatou's short hair it merely shows off how feminine she is. The eyes the lips, that body! The oozing of sultry glamor! Surely you've seen how a cute girl in a flannel shirt can highlight her femininity by dressing like a boy. In any case you and Erik are extremely mistaken if you think femininity is solely dependent on looks. Women express their femininity in a variety of ways and if you click on the link below and you think she expresses coarse masculinity you're completely hopeless.

"I can tell you that in my travels in Spain and Italy if I ever saw a girl dead drunk and dancing topless on a bar she was inevitably American, British or German."

I don't know what kind of places you normally go to but I have never seen what you describe in my entire life - anywhere.

Tourists behaving badly you could probably find anywhere. There is a big difference between how certain people behave when they are on holiday and how they behave when they are at home. Abnormal, neurotic behaviour is something people who have mental problems will feel they can more freely express when they are far from their normal environment, and more anonymous.

Sofia Loren does not have a feminine face, in my opinion. She has large breasts, an ordinary behind and a masculine face.

Of course it is not just about looks. If a woman has grace and style she will appear more feminine, and her masculine features will be accepted more easily. Add vulgarity to masculinity and you have Kardashian, who is the opposite of femininity. Sofia loren, a woman of style and grace, will appear more feminine than she is because the way she behaves is feminine.

A very feminine woman can sometimes afford to behave more vulgarily, and I think many men will readily forgive her since they sense her femininity. The less feminine a woman is the more attention she will have to pay to her behaviour, as it in some ways will compensate for her lack of femininity.

I think these women are far better examples of feminine women. To me, there must be something soft and sweet in a face for it to be feminine, and there has to be gracility. Sofia is the kind of latin woman who is beautiful only when very young. Her hard and chiseled features take over as she matures.

Women with unfeminine faces can be dramatic and striking, and I suppose sexy too, so they have their niche, especially if their body compensates for their masculine face. There are many latin women who fall into that category, I think.

There are many brunettes who are feminine but Loren and Kardashian are not good examples, in my opinion. (Not that I would put Loren in the same department as Kardashian. I don't mean to insult Loren).

I like Natalie Wood and Ava Gardner, and I also think Elizabeth Taylor is feminine. Elizabeth even managed to appear feminine in the film Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf, where she played a loud drunk and neurotic with deep personal problems. I love Rita Hayworth, too.

I do not live in Europe now but I still remember from college that Hungarians and Romanians ARE NOT Slavs. In one of your earlier posts you criticized coarse features (and fake blonde hair) of some girls from those ethnic groups and labeled them as Slavic. Hungarians belong to Finno-Ugric ethnic group, same as Finns and Estonians. Romanians are Southerners/Mediterraneans and share ethnicity with Moldovans, Macedonians and Greeks.

Slavic people, on the other hand, are generally divided into Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians) and Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Polabians). The last group, the Polabian Slavs, used to live in Northeastern Germany in the area of the Elbe river (nowadays, being a rather small minority in a generally non-Slavic country, they diffused allover the Germany) and are the most westward living group of Slavic people.

No doubt, over the hundreds (actually probably more correctly thousands) of years of cultural and ethnic interactions in the North-Eastern Europe the genotypes have beenn shared and exchanged between the peoples of the region (the Baltic sea isn't that big anyway) and when you travel in the region you can see some remarkably similar girl types, including the archetypal slender fair-skinned light-eyed blonde girls. There are some differences, as you have noted, too.

Btw, many beautiful women were talked about here but no one mentioned one of the biggest icons - Greta Garbo. Quite suprising.

"I do not live in Europe now but I still remember from college that Hungarians and Romanians ARE NOT Slavs. In one of your earlier posts you criticized coarse features (and fake blonde hair) of some girls from those ethnic groups and labeled them as Slavic."

Technically they may not be Slavic countries, but they are virtually surrounded by Slavic countries, and believing that there hasn't been migration and "race" mixing there is rather naive, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that Hungary is one of the most mixed countries in Europe. There are many there who have typical Slavic, broad, round and robust faces with massive cheekbones.

There are others who are more gracile and less Slavic in type, of course, but those were not the ones I was referring to. A common theme seems to be a very large and hooked nose, which appears both in Slavic faces and the more gracile Mediterannean, or Gypsy type.

Slavic men can look very good and masculine since the robust features suit men better. Women seem to often lose the needed gracility, and without it some of the femininity is lost since it depends to an extent on gracile, soft and fine facial features.

"Emily, I don't know how old you are but you should look into the romantic life of Halle Berry. She is an African American so probably rather ugly and "primitive" to you but she is considered by most people to be one of the most beautiful stars in Hollywood."

African American, is she? This is Halle with her mother, Judith Ann Hawkins;

Let's try to be truthful here. Halle is of mixed race.
As is so very often the case non-whites get their beauty because of their similarity to whites. Halle is pretty not because of any coarse black traits but because of the white genes she got from her caucasian mother. Her most prominent non-white feature, her nose, is also her weakest point, I think.

The single biggest problem with your posts is that you are being paranoically dishonest. Equally, with the others and with yourself. You very selectively nitpick facts that you believe support your racist claims while at the same time conveniently and selectively ignoring the ones that stand in stark contrast with what you want others to believe. And, as all clinically obsessed demagogues, you naively believe that other people somehow will agree to ignore the ocean of data that obviously turn your racist paranoia to cheap rubbish.

Like all psycho-demagogues you frequently employ statements of the type "What I am saying is widely accepted and cannot be disputed. It is simply the truth."

There was a guy in Germany who was doing the same and actually, at the time, quite many people in his home country believed him. He ended badly in 1945.

To support your racist fantasies you post meticulously selected pictures of people from Sweden calling them average. Then you contrast them with average or below average examples from e.g. India. Also as expected, you totally ignore socio-economic conditions and conveniently forget that, everything else being equal, a properly selected upper-class properly cared for girl from Sweden will obviously tend to look better in front of a camera than, say, a poor hard-working girl from Grece. This, however, says nothing about the actual innate beauty of peoples from different regions.

As part of your nationalistic propaganda, you hand select a narrow group of Swedes, maybe 10% of the overall genotype, and laborously try to convince everyone on this blog that this is how all Swedes look like. Your selections have many attractive (as described by you) features that are more commonly found in other peoples in Europe like the Galic, Slavic or Northern Italian than actually in the Swedish. I have been to Sweden and the population does not look even remotely as handsome as you try to convince us here. Majority of women are rather tall and either very thin and bony, thus devoid of the gracious female shapes, or conversely very heavily built with coarse facial features ("horse faces"). And again, please don't bother to counter by posting photos of beautiful girls from other countries trying to pass them off as Swedish.

Historically, Scandinavian Peninsula, as the most northern, sunlight-devoid and cold piece of land in Europe, remained uninhabited long after other parts of the continent became already populated. The beauty traits that you so much admiire in the few lucky Swedes that happen to possess them are actually all imports from other, mostly European (and more broadly Euro-Asian) gene pools. They arrived in Sweden through ancient peoples' migration and by intermixing in more modern times with other European peoples.

As I said before, racism and hate are not new. You follow the trail frequented before you by others of your ilk. However, what never ceases to amaze me is that all genuinly born racists are always driven by some kind of inferiority complex. Hitler raved about the Aryan race himself while looking anything like an Aryan, Goebbels (his minister of propaganda) was a professional 24/7 Jew-hater while being a Jew himself, they all turned against, among others, the Slavic peoples East of them at the same time obviously admiring in their propaganda the quintesential Slavic looks (blonde/fair shin/blue eyes), etc. etc.

Emily, what is your inferiority complex? As above, also in your case the full racist hypocrisy of your lunacies lies in the fact that the very gene exchange, so much hated by you and other genuine racists, has actually given people in your own country the very features that you happen to so much admire in today's Sweden. For instance, the the often quoted and discussed blonde fine-boned blue-eyed female genotype came to Sewden from the South-Baltic states, mostly northern Slavic populations plus partly northern Germany. So, net-net you were the beneficiaries in the process. Does the suppressed but ever returning awareness of this fact weigh so heavy on you that the only cure you see available is to keep spilling hate?

Can anyone who disagree with Erik and Emily contact me by email? (daniel_music@fastmail.fm)
I'm thinking of creating a website to debunk this nonsense
As others have said Erik is a mental illness sufferer with cognitive disfunctions and obsessive compulsive manias.
But he has a talent for cherry picking, missing the forest for trees and calling it science.
So many studies based on faulty methodology, faulty assumptions, ignored counfounding factors have been published.
For example IQ age and piagetan beliefs. It have been proven that there's no direct link between age and IQ but an indirect link between age assumption and social limitations and cognitive development. For example Piaget has been questioned by studies proving him wrong with the very same methodology he employed. His problem was applying his flawed tests to children from the same narrow social class, grown in specific context and with specific class limitatons.
There are so many examples of bad science out there, and cherry picking every bad study you can create a convincing theory based on nothing but faulty science. Of course you also must ignore all counterevidences and opposite findings and results. This site is an obsessive wasted effort. Pseudoscience and scientific tidbits scattered around in a pattern of preconception and mental illness. It might look very detailed and scientific but is just the detailed record of a pathological disturbed mind. Fortunately there are many professionals out there who would never take such stuff seriously, but understand anyway how dangerous such collection of pseudoscience can be and would love to help to debunk scientifically and rationally the pseudo facts and lies written here.

Doyle: Put your money where your mouth is. I await a scientific debunking of the major arguments offered by this site at the website you intend to come up with. Keep in mind that Emily is not affiliated with this site. So keep her criticism separate from my arguments.

Some more of those “attractive” women belong in the just cute or a not ugly section. I’m pretty board-minded, but some of them are just too plain. Unless by attractive you meant not ugly, like fives and ups on the ten point scale.

Silly girl!!! Everyone, everywhere, knows that the most beautiful women in the world come from the USA!! That is common knowledge, or wait, is that my opinion, that I'm trying to argue is fact? Then I'd be sounding a lot like you.....

They are attractive in a way that is meant to represent the ideal feminine proportions of the "feminine" type of woman. I don't think the point is if they are actually "hot", as much as they represent the most feminine type of facial and body proportions. The pictures are meant to be used as a reference.

No, I get that I read Erik’s introduction to that page. That’s the only reason why I asked the question. I was just curious as to why certain girls. I have seen the cute girl posts and some of the other women he has posted. Why are they just cute or honorable mention in the small beast or clothes hanger section, but not in the attractive women section? What made him remove Viv Thomas but keep Sandy from Karupspc but not add Sasha from teen dreams?

I know it’s not the dictionary of attractive women just Erik’s preference mostly.

That's pretty much it, it's Erik's own personal preference. It's his site, so he gets to decide. I'm sure if someone made a suggestion, and they were appropriately feminine in the requisites that he's established, he may take it into consideration. Ask him, or make a suggestion. I personally don't know how Ivy ever got on the list in the first place.

Seems to me the con argument is based upon personal anger/jealousy rather than any legitimate substance. Saying Nordics are 'big boned' and have 'large heads' is proof.

Kim Kardashian has the face of a man and a massive body. Not remotely feminine.

Living In Toronto, Canada one of the most multicultural cities on earth, I can say that while there are good looking women from all ethnicities, the observations by Emily are 100% correct. Arabic women tend to have large noses and coarser features, Latin girls are thicker with less feminine features and Asian girls are shorter with less curves, larger heads and flatter buttocks. There are many 'bottle-blondes'...which is best passed off by women of northern European ancestry. They wouldn't colour their hair blonde if it wasn't a desired feature. If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?

As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.

Jesus. You apparently took the time to read Emily's comments, but nobody elses? If you'd actually read other discourses on the recent comments, you'll see Emily certainly hasn't won anything. I'm rather insulted by your ignorance.

Your comment has little of anything new, but I just had to address this:

"If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?"

Nordics on the most feminine women on earth- and by proxy, nordic men must be too.

I'm really not in the mood to go into much detail at the moment, or possibly even again. You've passed by in these discussions before and sucked up to Emily and waved off any critiques of her as doing little more than calling her a nordic fetishist, but the rest are staring you right in your face. That kind of ignorance and lack of time to comb through these discussions, but to praise her is pretty amazing.

I find David's Hitler comparisons to be too emotive, but the rest of his post is spot on. The use of "Godwin's Law" doesn't mean somebody lost an argument, by the way.

Your critiques are remarkably similar to Emily's as well- people who attack or critique her are "jealous" and can "only use insults". Although she didn't sign her last comment, Emily's most recent post here said I call anybody who prefers nordics a fetishist. Uhhh, no, I've never said anything of the sort.

Emily is a compulsive liar, profoundly emotionally driven, a propagandist, and essentially a nordic supremacist. The vitrol shes shown to eastern european women, and to southern european women on this page are proof enough of that. I'm dead sick of people defending her because she's sick of racism against whites or speaking for whites or whatever. Someone who does that wouldn't trash the vast majority of whites to the exclusion of their own tiny, tiny little subdivision. (specifically northern europeans- more specifically, nordics, and even more specifically, scandinavians, and most specifically, swedes.)

The problem with people like Erik and Emily is that they marshall incredibly limited and poor psychological and cultural context evidence to buttress their arguments, and where they try to fill these gaps up, do it from a very, very narrow context. But Emily is unbelievably worse than Erik. Emily's arguments pretty much stem down to this:

1. Pop in and proclaim how swedish women are the epitomy of female beauty.
2. Act like her ultra-narrow preferences and opinions extend to all of humanity.
3. Buttress this by spamming the same several dozen photographs of swedish women from night clubs and the like, who might not even be that attractive, but are posted because they somewhat meagerly fit her ultra-narrow preferences, as evidence of this. Along with loads of inane anecdotes.
4. Contrast these nordics by spamming several dozen photographs of ethnicities and countries far, far larger than Sweden.
5. Basically ignore anything to the contrary- whether it be actual scientific, anthropological, academic etc. studies, detailed historical accounts, etc. etc. etc. and brand almost any detractor as being jealous or hating whites.
6. Wave off objections to trashing on non-nordic whites, or non-whites in general- such as calling asians fetal, undeveloped dwarves with downs syndrome that look like genetic experiments gone bad or saying blacks are the least evolved of all human races- as being little more than "crying racist".

I've genuinely seen enough of Emily to make judgements like this. She's psychotic. But the greatest, and I mean THE greatest fallacy of all in this kind of debate is to act as if the european, specifically nordic phenotype, can't produce extreme ethnic cranio-facial traits- which seem to be poorly expressed compared to most other groups, atleast in the nasal area. I think it's quite clear to say that an overtly long, narrow, tall face is an ethnic extremity for them, and other groups with similar phenotypes. This face is known as the "horse-face" look.

But still another great fallacy in this kind of debate, which you fall into, is this:

If nordic women are so feminine, why aren't nordic men as well?

This is the best defense Erik can muster:

"Just because a population has more feminine women does not mean that its men will also be more feminine. Have you ever entertained the notion of population variation in the extent of differentiation in secondary sexual characteristics? There are propulations where the women look more feminine and the men more masculine compared to others. In populations with more exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, you will find the women to be more feminine looking on average, the men to be more masculine looking on average, disproportionately find the most masculine-looking men, disproportionately find the most feminine-looking women and disproportionately find the most masculine-looking women also (because of sexually antagonistic selection)."

This bespeaks PURELY of VARIANCE among averages. It's certainly possible for a population to have skewed proportion of highly masculine men and highly feminine women, but once again by basic laws of inheritance, it would also have skewed proportions of highly masculine women and highly feminine women. You simply CANNOT have highly feminine women and at the same time having highly masculine men in a population, and expect it to stay this way. Now, I don't know of the exact dynamics of how and why women prefer men with the whole "pretty boy" look, which is rather feminine. But that seems to be a case of flucuating, proportional combinations of masculinity and femininity and not full-blown femininity. Regardless, that kind of look can't be produced by overtly feminine women in even a proper manner.

All of this seems to sadly suggest nordic women aren't as feminine as you want them to be.

I agree with Violet Corpus that although Nordics have some of the most feminine women, they have some of the most masculine women as well.

Now, I will restate that where I live we have a large "Nordic" population, mainly because these Germans settled here and are pretty exclusive to anyone outside of their little tribe, even today. I mean these people are really conservative and they can tell who came from where and who is who. I know conservatives get stereotyped as being stupid, but these Germans are actually extremely intelligent on average.

Either way,

I have observed they have very feminine women on average. Alot of the girls here are really feminine. Now most of them don't have the perfect hourglass figure. I have a more extreme hourglass figure than most of them and as you can see I have far from the "perfect" figure. But... they have other feminine features and their figures generally come close to the hourglass even though it may not qualify in the end. Either way, in contrast to this there are some extremely masculine German women here. In addition, some of the most masculine women I have ever EVER seen are Nordic and go to my school. However, there are fewer masculine women at my school on average than there are feminine women. Therefore, I guess it depends on the makeup of the original settlers. They were probably somewhat feminine on average.

I don't find very masculine German men here, or no offense but masculine men in general. The most masculine guys tend to be Irish, and I have to say I have my suspicions that they are the mythical "Black Irish". Although I don't think the Black Irish are mythical at all and are legit. There are a few Indians here,they are exchange students, but the men are not masculine they are very small boned and small in general. Although some are tall.

The German men here are generally just average. Not very masculine but not feminine either.

I know this is just one population, but its the best example I have.

However, I see a trend of "feminine" men especially in Scandinavia. Never have I seen so many men with styled dyed hair and colorful scarfs around their necks. But I haven't traveled to Scandinavia although we do have connections in Finland. My ideas of Scandinavian men are based on Swedish social networking sites I've browsed through.

No need to be insulted. I wasn't specifically referring to your posts.

In terms of how Godwin's Law is applied:

"Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate."

VioletCorpus, if Erik is wrong in his assessments, presumably there is good scientific data to pull that would indicate this? He has made his challenge clear. Whatever his (and Emily's) motivation, it doesn't invalidate their claims.

I don't agree with everything they state either. However, I was indicating that in this particular instance I concur with Emily's position. It's unfortunate that the posts, pro and con, can't be made with less hostility and without ad hominem attacks, but that is the nature of public, anonymous, forums, esp. one that generates such emotional reactions.

I do find your point regarding masculinity and feminity in a given population interesting. I'm curious to hear Erik's response.

As to my preferences...I have stated that Southern Europeans are quite appealing (maybe it's due to my Northern Irish heritage, I don't know). However, that does not mean that I therefore think they must be the most feminine or even the most beautiful necessarily. There are beautiful women from all ethnic backgrounds...

Anyway, no offense was intended. I was being slightly facetious with the Godwin's Law point...just to let David know that it can ruin one's position, however valid (or not as the case may be).

Swedish men have become more metrosexual and less masculine in recent times, according to a new survey polling both sexes on their opinion of the Swedish male.

51 percent of respondents said Swedish men were more masculine in previous times, with men in particular (58 percent) agreeing with the statement. Only 13 percent of men and women felt today's men were more masculine than their predecessors.

Asked whether Swedish men were more masculine than their counterparts in other countries only 9 percent of Swedish women felt this to be the case. 19 percent said Swedish chaps were less masculine, though the overwhelming majority (65 percent) said they were neither more nor less masculine than foreign fellows.

Swedish women also like their mates to stand up straight and be counted. Asked to choose between five alternatives, 33 percent of women found slouched shoulders and poor posture to be the least attractive physical qualities in a potential partner.

28 percent said overweight partners were a no-no, while 18 percent ruled out partners with feminine features, 8 percent disliked scrawniness and 0 percent found masculine features to be a turn-off. The 'None of the above' and 'don't know' options made up the numbers.

For men (36 percent), the weight issue topped the list of least attractive physical features, followed by posture (18 percent), masculine features (18 percent), scrawniness (10 percent) and feminine features (3 percent).

Moving away from the physical side of things, both men (44 percent) and women (43 percent) listed 'a good sense of humour' as by far the most attractive quality in a partner.

Very few respondents considered job success to be the top draw in a partner: 2 percent of women and 1 percent of men.

Both women and men were also asked which type of man they found most attractive. A lot of men chose to skip this question but on the whole those who did answer agreed with the replies of their female compatriots, who responded as follows:

Thank you for this reply. I'm sorry if I acted somewhat forceful last time, but you gave an air of arrogance that simply wasn't justified for what lays before you. There is *alot* to read on these discussions, but for you to agree so much with Emily, indicating you read a good deal of her posts, and to greet her detractors with such characterizations of her arguments- its just crude.

I could detail more if you want, but to sum it up, the problem with Erik's arguments, like I said, is that he uses very poor preferential, and in some cases, anthropoligical evidence, to back himself up. This is most notably seen in how he treats large jaws and cheekbones are inherently masculine features (when in reality they're not), and his dismissal of much in the way of historical and pre-modern preferences in beauty, particularly in the case of non-western societies. I've posted a good deal of this before, particularly in regards to excerpts from Charles Darwin's writings on sexual selection in humans, but the way Erik deals with them is quite poor. I can't find his primary entry on it at the moment, though.

Erik's response to the idea of nordic women being so highly feminine entailing nordic men being feminine was purely on the basis of population variance- but then, that would also leave alot of ugly, masculine looking women in a population as well. No true consistency in beauty.

My simple point is that nordics, particularly swedes, aren't as feminine as many promoters of this idea simply on the basis of the way their men look. Your link is interesting, but it seems to be primarily about behaviors and manners of dress. It's not like testosterone differences in a population can change alot in a generation, though.

by Apollyonlink
'' If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''

There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.

Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine.

"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking ."

Yes, that is a good point. As I stated, there are good-looking women in all ethnic groups and it is certainly possible that the best are not Nordic.

My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'...

"My understanding was that Erik's position was not simply based upon appearance but also androgen/estrogen ratios? i.e. that the feminine appearance is more than 'skin deep'..."

Erik does imply that the feminine appearance is more than skin deep, however he also adresses pseudo-feminine and pseudo-masculine features. There are people out there, although very few, that may appear very feminine or very masculine simply because of their genes and not their hormones. For example, perhaps it is just in a woman's genes to have an hourglass figure, large breasts, full lips, large eyes, etc. These are all feminine features by the way haha (no I don't think you are a retard, but just mentioning). But, maybe her estrogen levels are average or even low, and she may not be feminine at all! Generally however there are extremely few people like this. Usually people only display a few pseudo qualities, and their true femininity or masculinity can be observed if one studies them carefully and is not distracted by the pseudo qualities that seem to indicate otherwise.

Also, from what I understand Erik DOES NOT imply that Northern European women are more feminine LOOKING on average, but truly are more feminine on average, meaning that they have higher estrogen levels compared to their androgen levels and this gives them their feminine appearance. However, he also notes that certain genetic factors contribute as well. For example, he mentions that fine features, although not feminine within themselves(

However, one thing that gets me is how Erik tries to convince people that Northern European men with fine features do not appear feminine or more feminine compared to those without fine features who are equally as mascuoline. Its bullocks! Those fine features will always add a degree of femininity to even the most masculine man. Just like robust features will add a degree of masculinity to the most feminine woman. This however does not mean that Northern European men with fine features cannot be attractive or cannot appear masculine overall. Actually,I have to say that women actually find certain feminine qualities attractive on men and prefer them to masculine ones. However, overall the male probably should be on the masculine side to be considered "optimally" attractive.

Anyways,this is why in the end it comes down to the individual. We can compare populations all we want but in the end you choose to pass down your genes to one or ahrrm.. a few people. Whatever floats your boat. So, if you want to find the most ATTRACTIVE people than you can't base where to look on populations that are on average more attractive, because as it was mentioned before, these people are not always the MOST attractive or the best. Yes, the chances that you will find someone really attractive or even the MOST attractive person is higher if you look there. But... you might be missing out on something better as well.

Anyways, my opinion is that Northern European women are on average more feminine and more attractive. On the other hand, I think that hormones are transient. Meaning, they depend on outside factors like for example diet, at times. This may be a dumb theory, and I realize I am fairly uneducated, however I believe that one reason Northern European women are more feminine is not simply because they were selected that way or whatever.I think it is the diet they were exposed to for generations and generations. Northern Europeans rely on meat and milk more than any other population of people on the planet. Common sense really considering they go through long harsh winters where food just doesn't grow. There are hormones in meat,and hormones in milk. Duh.

Also, appearing and being more feminine doesn't necessarily make someone more successful in passing on their genes and it also doesn't mean that feminine woman even has good genes to begin with. Germans are brining middle easterners or whatever to increase their population for example, so that they can support their economy, because Germans themselves are not producing enough offspring to support the economy. Now, realize I didn't say the Germans were mixing with the Middle Easterners. Therefore, although German women are more feminine than middle eastern women, they are not passing on their genes as successfully, and not because they can't, but because they choose not to for a variety of reasons.

Erik does argue much of this, such as in regards to native americans having the highest, roundest foreheads and black africans having the most derived, feminine regions around the eyes, such as having some of the smallest browridges of any human ethnic group.

My qualms with Erik, however, is that he implicates, or atleast, tries to indicate implications, of many cranio-facial characteristics that fall on a scale of derivation to femininity and general attractiveness, such as his belief that jaw and cheekbone size are correlates of femininity, when they are wholly unrelated, and things like body size and nose size are sizable components of their beauty, in terms of facial symmetry. He draws upon very little historical and non-western sources for many of his arguments, in terms of universal considerations of beauty. He uses quite weak cross-cultural and historical evidence as well. He also, like many people in this debate, act as if the european phenotype can't produce ethnic extremities like many others. He also implicates certain physical traits, like nose structure, into scales of derivation on outright poor or scanty evidence and reasoning.

In regards to nose structure, his arguments are especially poor. Plastic surgery is telling, but again, we have the cultural and psychological influences to consider, along with the pre-modern historical evidence- which is sorely lacking from many of his arguments. I can't get enough of how, in late 07, on one of his widely discussed entries on ethnic plastic surgery, he floundered when it was mentioned how east asians had no preference for less prominent eyelids prior to pre-modern times.

He also argues for some very meager sexual selection hypothesis' in favor of the looks of northern europeans and the like. This is the gist of it, though. Erik has some good ideas, but is deeply flawed in many regards, and is highly biased as well.

Plus, while I don't think Erik has necesarrily argued that european women are the most feminine, he indicates they're highly feminine, probably even moreso than east asian women. While this might hold true for below the neck traits, for above the neck ones, this is just foolish.

I don't know if testosterone differences are the end all for general facial femininity either. There could be other environmental influences that influence facial femininity, and another factor might be how much the bone structure of the face and the like responds to testosterone. IE, people might vary on an individual, and racial basis in the sensitivity of their bone structure to tesosterone, and thus masculinization. I honestly don't know if this holds true for even below the neck bone structure. It's certainly true for things like muscle structure, for example. Blacks, atleast in America, experience considerably greater muscle development, on average, in part due to the fact their muscles are more sensitive to the effects of testosterone.

And at the end of it all, the high femininity of nordic women would simply require nordic men to be highly feminine as well- but they're not! And people like Erik and Emily do little to debate this.

Emily is a complete extremist, and much different from Erik, but Erik has been sickeningly silent towards her.

QUOTE:
"by Apollyonlink
'If Northern Europeans aren't the most feminine (and best looking, on average), why is practically every ethnic (and Caucasian) male trying to pick them up?
As I stated before (since I'll be accused of racism), there are many good-looking women from all ethnicities (no one disputes this from what I've read), but, on average and per capita, there are more among Europeans in general and Northern Europeans in particular.''

There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter. Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people i.e it doesn’t make there best looking people any less better looking .In fact in Eriks writing there are clues for perceptive readers what his arguments with reference to beauty are. Erik has categorically argued he does not believe Nordic/European women are the ‘best looking’. He has clearly agreed with the idea Nordic beauty can be ‘Improved’and that by non-nordic/non-european admixture. One who believes a certain beauty can be ‘improved’ clearly does not believe that particular beauty is the best looking for the best looking would denote no further improvement i.e the highest state of beauty reachable or the limit of beauty. Another clue is in Eriks argument that beauty is the least Egalitarian attribute. This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people. This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed and since Erik has argued attractive women can be found in all category of races this equally aplies across the spectrum and the least equally distributed does not just refer to Europeans/Nordics. There is no dispute in general regarding a high percentage of good looking people in Nordic/Europe countries.

Secondly there appears to be confusion with respect to the femininity aspect of European women. Eriks argument is NOT and NEVER has been that European/Nordic women are the MOST feminine never mind more feminine overall his argument is they are OVERALL MORE FEMININE LOOKING i.e the word ‘looking’ implying they ‘appear’ they ‘look’ but in actual reality it is possible though it may not be the case that they may not be. It is clear more feminine 'looking' is NOT symonymous with the most feminine or more feminine."

I would like to know which study shows that white caucasians have more attractive people per capita as compared to other races.
It must either point to higher frequency of people who develop symmetrically, or that a higher frequency of men and women with the high enough testosterone or oestrogen levels to develop those handsome/pretty looks we all know so well and humans seek out. I have never heard of such a study for either.

"This argument finds no agreement with the argument a high percentage of good looking people = the best looking people.
This argument clearly states beauty is the least equally distributed attribute. In other words a high percentage of good looking people
is not synonymous with the best looking people for the best looking is least equally distributed"

"There is a difference between good looking people and the best looking people. Having a high percentage of good looking people (on average) and having the best looking people are two statements worlds apart in which figures play no part in the latter."

"Having a low percentage of good looking people overall in a particular country doesn’t detract from the beauty of there best looking people"

I would love to do a study where testosterone/oestrogen levels of populations are measured, and the percentages of individuals with either low/medium/high levels of these hormones, and also if these low/medium/high levels of hormones produces the same changes to asian and black men/women's bone structure, hip waist ratio, and delicacy of the skeleton that is observed in caucasian whites.

I would put all my money on the black and asian women with high oestrogen having the exact same doe eyes, the same small waist, same extra fat deposits on their thighs and butts, and the men with the exact same huge brow-bone and exaggerated masculine looks. :P
I bet it will be in the same proportions of people too.

kim deffinetly has plastic surgery, you can see it by looking at photos from different times, like years....her face becomes more streched and eyes go up every year higher and higher! And her body is very unproportional which is not beautiful! her legs are too short for her big butt lol Big buts are nice but then the big butt need a proportional appearance to rest of the body ah......all celebs are fake, sorry to brake all of your hearts!<3
And...i didnt say that nordic, slavic, baltic countries have evolved from jewish, but there are big communities of jews! Really big communities! First of all, just look at the surnames and you will see where their ancestors originate from.....so my thought was, we all are so mixed up that we cant tell which race or culture has most beautiful women! Tho...if you will go to Latvia, you will see that most women, that is 97 % are naturally beautiful and feminine! ;) :P If you dont believe go to trip to Latvia! :) or check internet but be careful, there are different cultures there in Latvia too, so before saying something about a very masculine, unnatractive woman, check where she is from, as she can be from different country living in latvia! ;) Russian women(rounder faces) look completely different from us latvians, the same with lithuanians(very tall, most are skinny, with long, pointy noses), and jewish(close set up eyes-its true, and big smile)...latvian women most have oval faces with mousy or blonde or ginger hair, long legs, hourglass figure most common!Quite big eyes( blue, grey, green, light brown)...fragile looking women, which is very feminine!;)

eeerm, Im not Eric but I think i can explain the thing about Arnold Shwarceneger...he is Austrian, Austria is Western Europe....Northern Europe is Norway, Sweeden, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Denmark, Iceland and I dont know why but even UK lol... -_-

here you go a nice, lovely map of locations in Europe.... ^_^ Have a peachy lovely day

latvian, I think you misunderstood what I was asking for. I meant that Arnold S. "represents" (physically) the essense of a Northern European (and Western) male in the media. Eric mentions certain aspects of his physicality (protruding mouth, flattened head) that are not congruous with a typical N European. I was asking for him to elaborate on that. I would particularly like to know what Eric would use as a comparative for the skeleto-muscular structure of Arnold along with Eric's ideal Northern European build.

This thread has got some of the STUPIDEST LOGIC I have ever come across. Any judgment of qualitative features of the human body is NORMATIVE. The beauty assessment of even measurable aspects are normative and subjective because they are based on one person's ideal, based on the norms they have been exposed to, while generalizing about entire populations.

To say that Latins or Arabs or this or that group of people have 'coarseness' (which is related to being African? Oh, Really? AFRICA IS A HUGE F*CKING CONTINENT WITH A PLETHORA OF ETHNIC GROUPS YOU FOOLS!), or that Latins are more dramatic...

I don't even know where to start with you f*cking idiots. Look up common logical fallacies.

Jahangir: If you have believed Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the epitome of a Northern European male and are unable to understand why I have said that he does not look Northern European, then you obviously do not know what Northern European looks are about. That you even bring “ideal looks” into the equation is remarkable. The ideal is attractive, and the question of whether one looks like an “ideal”/attractive Northern European does not even arise when one is clearly not Northern European in appearance.

I am afraid but this site is not designed to target people such as yourself, and you should look at enough natives of Northern Europe to understand my comment.

On the other hand, much heated debate within this site would have been avoided had this information been clearly provided some place. This thread itself is a good illustration. My comment on Schwarzenegger was in response to booty man above. Now booty man obviously does not know Northern European looks if he can describe Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Northern European, and his misrepresentation of Northern Europeans prompted Emily to respond. The discussion then proceeded to mud slinging and what people think my stances are, many of which ended up being grossly misrepresented, to which I never got around to respond.

I believe I should put up some information on Northern European looks to avoid all this trouble… just need to find the time.

You and booty man need to educate yourselves about the physical appearance of Northern Europeans before trying to figure out relevant issues presented within this site, which has never been intended to target people like you.

If it is not possible for you to live among Northern Europeans, you should make an effort to look up old anthropological texts on physical variation in Europe. In going through these pictures, you should ignore terminology as they are non-standard and also ignore hypotheses on origins since they need to be considerably revised given modern anthropological knowledge, but the pictures can give you an idea of geographic physical variation in Europe, including appearances of people that live in the boundaries of regions predominantly occupied by people of different ethnic groups. An example is Carleton Coon’s photographic plates of skull shape variation in Europe: http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troephotos.htm

Latvian’s response, saying that Austria, the birth place of Schwarzenegger, is not in Northern Europe is partially relevant, specifically in understanding what geographically constitutes the region. North vs. south refers to latitude (not longitude, from which derives east vs. west). Therefore, Moscow in the east is as northern as southernmost Sweden, and the northernmost inhabitants in the west of Europe are in Britain, which is not too far south of Scandinavia. However, when assessing whether someone looks Northern European, place of birth is irrelevant.

Your point is very good Jahangir, but I will argue about the Northern thing...I am sure you found all this info in internet, but I will tell you what ...sorry for the english and typinmg mistakes, Im a bit drunk, had a uni 3rd year party! :D About the theme. Like you said, about the longitudes and latitudes(hell whatever).....but what you dont know is that Latvia(used to be occupied by Russians, Germans, and what not) and pretty much I 100 % know, that guys there dont look like that Shwarceneger guy or something....I know you will be happy to hear this, as you were trying to point out things to some people up there to hear the truth.....BUT...other things I want to point out, what my lecturer said is that if youre researching something for your work, essay,idea, etc, dont research in internet, the information can be unrelevant....books....books...books are the prefferable and most consistent-libraryyyyy!!!!! And britain is an island its not even Europe lol....joking......seriously....its an island, so its a separate continent Haha....XD aaaaah, this is fun....and again, everyone is beautiful, all of races!!!!!And if someone is ugly, then not becouse of the characteristical looks but.....becouse the person is simply an A-hole....simply as that...this site is good idea but somehow it stinks..... and yes, about the identity thing, as my Northern country Latvia has been under so many dirty disgusting power hands, like Russia, Germany and etc then our blood is pretty mixed up there dudes!recently I found out that i have scottish blood.....O_Oso yeah, the race and location thing is bullshit, so true...sorry for blurbing again.....uh....:P I have to go to feed my birds otherwise they will fly away from me....I know...they have a plan to go to Africa! They are plotting that...so Im off....Adieu! Chau.....uhm, ok...

sorry about pointing out one thing......you know thephotograph links you put up here......some of the nordic categorized men look like jewish men, so you see, yes, people mixed...like that 3rd man on the link I reposted....he seriously looks like my best friends dad who is jewish! like a copy!
Ok Ok im off.....

I commented previously on the need to look to 1950s models for examples of feminine beauty; in particular, I drew attention to the fact that Playboy once contained some decent material.

Alizee Jacotey is one of many superior examples of feminine beauty that may have been overlooked by this site. Her dance routines exhibit some of the most enthralling exploitation of an optimal waste-to-hip ration ever accomplished. There is no doubt if my mind that her facial structure is beautifully ultra-feminine, although I fear that Erik will be able to refute my view. If there is any dispute about whether her breasts are real, it should be noted that a nude video of her was once available on youtube that proves them real. Let us not let her poor quality music distract us from the beauty she has displayed to the world.

Latvian: Comments written in a drunken state are not welcome. If you are foolish enough to go by what your lecturer has told you about not trusting what you read on the internet and going with published materials such as books, then do not waste your time with this site. Incidentally, you did not notice that the internet source I cited is actually a published book that was put online.

my name is: Asian beauty, including many of the examples you have shown, has been discussed at this site, just not in one place, and the discussion is not politically correct. The women you posted look good. One of them is white, some are part white and some have undergone cosmetic surgery.

I am a little bit confused about your comments on "Latin" women. As a German, I never know what people mean when they say "Latin". Do you mean Latin-American women or do you mean Spanish women (from Spain, in Europe)? If you mean Latin-American women, your point is partially right, but "Latin-American" is not a race or etnicity. Latin-Americans are mostly Native Americans (just notice their mongoloid traits: eyes, lips, cheekbones) mixed (or not) with African slaves and/or European conquerors. So it is almost impossible that there is any semitic element in them (which by the way wouldn't have any historical explanation). Their hooked noses have a much more obvious explanations if you look at the pictures of some Peruvian or Bolivian indigenous population. Latin-Americans from other regions, like Mexico for instance, will never have that kind of nose-bridge because the indigenous population shows a much more typically mongoloid kind of nose.

And if with "Latin" you mean Spaniards, then I am sorry to disappoint you, but the population of the Iberian Peninsula (with the exeception of the Basques) have pretty low nose-bridges, lower than an average Halstatt Nordic, and very selten aquiline.

At this point I really would like to explain you something concerning "aquiline" or as you call them "hooked" noses. There is a big difference between an aquiline nose on a Swede or a German (let's take German Poet Schiller as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gerhard_von_K%C3%BCgelgen_001.jpg ) and the hooked nose on a semitic individual. Racial theorists have always consider a thin, not very "hooked" aquiline nose to be a pure Nordic trait and, if you think of it, you will probably be able to remember some people of your own etnicity who have convez bridges, but their nose will be surely not as big and wide as the one on Middle-Easterners. For many centuries, aquiline noses were considered a very noble feature, often seen in portraits of Nordic nobleman, leaders and intellectuals.

In general, a lower nose-bridge is considered more feminine, but the average nose-bridge of Halstatt Nordics (mainly Swedes and Danish) is rather high. Of course, it is lower in women than in men, but if it is very low you should consider if that person is maybe partly Finnish and therefore with a strong Asian component. What I wanted to say is that aquiline noses, if they are narrow and long (when seen from the front), that is "leptorrhine), they may be a purely Nordic trait if the rest of the face indicates so.

I hope you see that I didn't want to disagree with you in your general oppinion, I just wanted to offer some scientific terms basing on my experience as an archeologist.

You said that you don't like Latin women, but you love Rita Hayworth. Rita Hayworth (née) Margarita Cansino) was born to an Irish-Italian mother, from whom she inherited, I suppose, her coarse face and broad nose, but probably also the full lips and great hair, and to a Spanish father (a gipsy, I think), from whom she probably has her eyes and forehead (and the sensual, full hair).

Rita Hayworth doesn't seem very feminine to me, although I understand that people like her figure. The waist-hip-ratio is usually the strength of Spanish and Italian women, for they have tiny waist and rounded hips seen from both the front AND the side. But Rita's face is not particularly feminine and bleached hair should never be attractive to men used to be around women with real blond or red hair, in my oppinion.

Beauty IS subjective. A lot of these Nordic women you put up as *epitome of beauty* are mediocre bland looking to me with no outstanding features at all and pale (not sensual) and bird thin lips and im sure to very many people as well they're so-so women who dont stand out at all. Most of these women you think the most attractive won't be voted as the most beautiful women in the world by ANY beauty magazine or beauty polls. They're bland and plain.

To be honest, there's something "off" with how these Nordic women look:

-Pasty pale (look kinda sick and not normal and not AS sexy and sensual skin tone compared to other race of womne wiht nice fair and tan skin; some of these women posted look kinda freaks or vampires, to be frank)
-facial shape not so good (look closely at the shape the outline of the head)
-the facial/body features and skin not perky/tight/uplifted nor well-defined quite droopy if you know what i mean (with that they look quite aged not youthful and that's how the features/skin of other races look like when they reach their 30's)
-the low cheekbone also gives them a not perky look.
-the nose of several women are not finely shaped and quite "fleshy" at the tip.
-extremely thin eyebrows is ugly, weird, and artificial looking
-freckles is ugly as it makes the skin look dirty not clear or flawless
-thin, dry, dull, lifeless, not shiny, weak, unhealthy, ugly looking hair. That's a bad hair day for race of women with great hair.
-skin not very tight, smooth, silky and clear compared to other races. you can see lines/wrinkles in some areas esp. on the neck.
-The breasts are not round shape and perky, droopy.
-the bodies are not very shapely, skin and flesh not firm perky looking looks like a body for women in late 20's.
-Most Nordics too have pancake ass and no hips.
-Many of these women have big and quite bony masculine head- just like the women you posted.
-Most Nordics age fast. Many men even Nordic men say this that blonde age fast, by the time they reach 25-30 they look 10-15 years older. Their beauty is short term.

It is universally well-known and highly accepted fact by most people and even biology, sexuality, and feminine beauty studies concluded that Asian women are the most feminine race of women. This is obvious look at these many Asian beauties totally feminine features from head/hair to toe compared to Nordics, and they look smart, neat delicate fine perky features, charming, classy elegant, graceful, gracile, striking, very sexy looks and body, very round perky breasts, delicate smooth facial and body structure outline, cute, sweet, gorgeous, mysteriously interesting, seductive, exotic, and so on and on:http://www.myspace.com/426126736http://www.myspace.com/426126736/photos

Asian hair is the thickest, shiniest, strongest, silkiest, healthiest hair strands while blonde hair strand is the thinnest, weakess, dullest hair. (Google a lot of credible sources). The Asian skin is the softest, smoothest, most youthful, tightest skin pores, clearest/cleanest almost flawless; European White skin has high risk of getting skin cancer and age fast. (Google a lot of credible sources). Blue eyes have more medical implications than dark eyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color (under Medical Implications)

"Those with lighter iris color have been found to have a higher prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) than those with darker iris color;[51] lighter eye color is also associated with an increased risk of ARMD progression.[58] An increased risk of uveal melanoma has been found in those with blue, green or gray iris color.
.[42][45] However, a study in 2000 suggests that people with dark brown eyes are at increased risk of developing cataracts and therefore should protect their eyes from direct exposure to sunlight.[59]

Some study stated also stated "The lighter the eyes, the weaker the immune system."

Apparently, the light eyes have much more medical complications than the dark eyes. So in medical sense, the dark eyes is healthier and stronger gene.

Recent research shows that blue-eyed men prefer blue-eyed women. Thus it appears that, at least to some observers, eye colour is important.
But why do humans have different eye colours?
It mostly comes down to the amount and location of melanin (yes, the same substance which controls skin colour) in the human eye. Pale eyes such as blue, grey or green eyes contain little melanin, dark brown eyes more. Which eye colour you get is primarily determined from genetic variation based on the eye colour of your parents.
But does your eye colour influence how you see?
It turns out that it does. The darker the eyes, the more light is absorbed as light waves pass through the eye, and the less light is available to reflect within the eye. Light reflection (scatter) within the eye can cause susceptibility to glare (eg. sun or headlights) and to poor contrast discernment. Thus it seems that people with darker eyes may have better vision in high-glare situations – perhaps this makes them better night drivers, for example.
Eye colour may also affect your colour vision. Here it seems that lighter eyes may provide some advantages.
So it seems to me that blue-eyed people should really go for dark-eyed partners – this way one can pick the paint colours, and the other can drive home at night.

Are people with lighter eyes (blue or green) more sensitive to sun light?

(Most testify it's true)

Quite a lot of East Asians wear glasses not that the East Asian eyes geneticaly have eye problems, it's a result of too much studying as well as the Japanese have history of staring at the sun.

Asian eyes are not truly black. Most of the people who appear to have black eyes have, infact, extremely dark brown eyes that seem to be black.
When a light shines in the eyes, you can see that they're a very dark brown color.

" In 2008, new research revealed that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.[35] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[36] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[35][36][37] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."

"The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.[35]"

"In humans, brown eyes contain large amounts of melanin within the iris stroma, which serves to absorb light at both shorter and longer wavelengths."

"Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more melanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less melanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change, and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color."

"Blond
Blond hair ranges from nearly white (platinum blond, tow-haired) to a dark golden blond. Strawberry blond, a mixture of blond and red hair is a much rarer type containing the most amounts of pheomelanin.

Blond hair can have almost any proportion of pheomelanin and eumelanin, but both only in small amounts. More pheomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond. Many children born with blond hair develop darker hair as they age, with the majority of natural blonds developing their hair color into a very dark, almost brown, color by the time they reach middle age. Blond hair is most commonly found in Northern and Eastern Europeans and their descendants, but can be found spread around most of Europe.

Blond hair is exceptionally rare among those without European heritage, however the Melanesians of New Guinea are one of the few non-European races and the only black race known to have a high blonde hair rate. This is because the Papuans/Melanesians have the highest rate of the newly-evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 59.4% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele. Sub-saharan African has the lowest while the caucasian race has the second highest of 50% which may also account for their wide range of hair colors."

The eyes of people with severe forms of albinism may appear red under certain lighting conditions owing to the extremely low quantities of melanin,[55] allowing the blood vessels to show through. In addition, flash photography can sometimes cause a "red-eye effect", in which the very bright light from a flash reflects off the back of the eyeball, which is abundantly vascular, causing the pupil to appear red in the photograph.[56]
Although the deep blue eyes of some people such as Elizabeth Taylor can appear violet at certain times, true violet-colored eyes only occur due to albinism

Are blond haired, blue eyed people genetically superior to other hair/ eye/ skin colours? On the contrary, in biological and medical sense, the recessive genetic features of light Europeans make them disadvantaged in more conditions or quite inferior.

"Superior as a whole - no. Superior (advantaged) in the cold Northern European environment that they evolved to adapt in - yes. You're correct that these were the some of the last features to have devoloped, since the environment that they developed for was one of the last settled. Though they are the latest, they may not be the greatest since they are not really superior as it only proffers an advantage in the environment it was developed in. The Caucasian race that sports these features was the most recent branch in our family tree, as they followed the retreating glaciers (global warming - oh my) and occupied Northern Europe. While the other races, which had been in place for tens of thousands of years, were already adapted to their own environments and had no need for these features. As a matter of fact these features, evolved to deal with colder environments, are actually a disadvantage/maladaption in other hotter (our original) environments. A good example is that a Caucasian in sub-Saharan Africa would be easily suceptible to sunburn, and other heat related casualties. Oddly in biological terms, these are actually specializations which , which in the long run may be a disadvantage in the hotter post-glacial world."
Source(s):
BS (Biology)

"The period of time for a mutation to appear has no correlation to the degree of "superiority" of the mutation. "

"Brown eyed/haired people are less prone to sun damage to their skin and can see better in bright conditions than blue eyed people... so no."

" No. The hair and eye colors or racial characteristics are just examples of endemicism (adaptation to local conditions).

Natural selection might have favored the development of hair and eye color in the cloudy environments they became most common in. Though I suspect sexual (mate) selection had more to do with it than anything.

Evolution is not a progressive linear transition from inferior to superior forms. If it was there would be no other life forms except the purported superior one. It is a continual reshaping of forms in response to selective factors of environment.

There is no such thing as a genetically superior organism. A form that is highly successful in one environment will fail miserably in another if the conditions that favor that form are replaced with unfavorable conditions.

I'll give a clearer example. If the ability to reproduce were determined by the ability to lift large weights people with weightlifter physiques would be more numerous than people with other builds. In an environment where sprinting determined reproductive success people with runner's builds would be more commonplace. In both instances apparent superiority would be dependent on external circumstance which, in the real world, is more complex and changeable.

Hair and eye color are the result of a very small number of genes which require only minor changes to produce. All of which could be re mutated out of existance if need be. Not some clever re-engineering that makes the organisms 'better'."

"no, it makes you more likely to get cancer"

"No and yes ...

First, I would be very reluctant to say which skin/hair/eye colouring appeared last in the general population since I have no idea about that - and I wonder if anyone has even investigated that one yet.

My main point - variations in population like skin colour etc appear as adaptations to local conditions. So blond hair & blue eyes are very likely superior for the conditions prevelant in the geographical area in which they first appeared.

*BUT* these same variations could not be 'superior' in other locations ... otherwise the same variation (or very similar) would have appeared in a number of locations around the globe.

Since populations have only recently started to be connected in the sense of mobility and social interaction we are a long way from seeing what adaptations (if any) emerge in the global population as a result of the new environment of the 21st centurary and beyond. "

Source(s):
I'm not an expert but have a good general understanding of evolutionary princciples

Something interesting. This is not to offend but simply providing more information about the differences.

I've read in some Sexuality forum in the past about comparisons of different races of women and the scent in the female private part. Many men testified Asian women have no smell in private part and very clean (nobody said otherwise) while many men have said White women have bad smell down there, some have white mucus around their genitalia, and 3 guys said particulary the blondes and red heads have a distinct bad smell in private part. Could it be just differences of the food they eat and differences in hygiene or it's a genetic differences?

While blue eyes are thought to be exclusive to Caucasoid ethnic groups,the manifestation of blue eyes has been documented in pure-blooded, darkly complected tribal Africans, as well as people of mixed African and European ancestry; the former, usually the result of genetic mutation and the latter most often the manifestation of recessive European genes.

Just not easily observed but if you'd look closely or when light shines on the hair/eyes the true coloring would be abvious. No light colorings as the Europeans so it appears as if no diversity that all colorings are the same.

Most asians have Plastic surgery? A lot of ignorant ridiculous negative stereotypes the Westerns have about Asians. The overwhelming majority of the Chinese,Japanese, and Southeast Asian populations DO NOT have plastic surgery. It's the Koreans who have high rate of plastic surgeries. (But it's just plain common sense to know, even the majority of Koreans do not have plastic surgery) .

Plastic surgery, photoshopping of pics, wearing much make up, tanning lotions, hair dye/hair extensions are very common with American and European celebrities. I'd say much MORE common than with Asian celebrities. If you watch Asian t.v. many stars wear almost no make up. Wearing make up is too common wiht regular White women, many regular Asians do not wear make up except at work.

About the misconceptions Asians wanting to look "White"

HERE'S THE TRUTH:

If you will really think about the East Asians who undergo surgery to make their eyes BIGGER their eyes become similar to the SIZE AND SHAPE of the other many Asians with natural quite bigger eyes, not as big as the eyes of the Caucasians. These group of Asians actually wanted to have the bigger eyes of the other many Asians (almond shape), not that BIGGER eyes of the Whites, their eeys do not end up looking like that. Many East Asians and most Southeast ASians naturally have the almond shaped eyes...

...European eyes is typically bigger and slightly round shape not the so called "almond shape". But there are also a lot with the almond shape. Almond shape eyes is idealized by many around the world it has an exotic sexy appeal. It has quite slant angle. Many of the Latinas, Russians and Eastern Europeans and some Scandinavians who have Mongoloid admixture as well as the Persians, Italians have this almond eyes, the size of theri eyes is just slightly bigger than that of the almond Asian eyes.

With slanty eyes.
I see some trend for some White celebrities making their eyes slanty looking with make up i.e. Scarlett JOhansson (alhto half Jew), Taylor Swift, and some others.

Btw, some of the Japanese have big round eyes but still smaller sized thna that of the big round eyes version of the Caucasians.

Same with skin whiteness. Many Asians NATURALLY have white skin and that's the skin tone and quality the others strive to achieve with the whitening creams, the clear flawless porcelain skin of White skinned Asians, not the European White version.
That's why The models in skin product commercials are Asians, not Europeans. Asians value youthful flawless soft skin, think skin is their best physical feature. Even before Whites came to East Asia, light skin is idealized- the fair Asian skin. It's ancient trend.

The Asian women who get taller nose, the desired nose is similar to that of the other many Asians with moderately tall size nose, not as tall as that of the typical european nose. The taller European nose stick out of the face not proportional to the face and rough looking and bigger nostrils. (yes there are also many Asians with other form of nostril flaw). The Whites who undergo nose surgery usually make their nose smaller in size similar to other Whites and Asians with smaller more feminine nose.

Saying they want to have the Caucasian eyes is similar to saying White women who undergo plastic surgery to get fuller lips want to have the lips of the Africans, when the lips they want is not as thick as of the Africans, their lips ended up looking like of the Italian's Asian's and Latina's fuller plumpier lips. The lips get thinner as we age, thicker plumpier lips is beatiful and youthful. Or, the tanning of the Whites, the color is similar to the tan of the Latinas and Asians, not the dark chocolate or black skin of the Africans.

White women shave legs, so are they imitating the less hairy legs of the Asians? No, the hairs in the legs just need to get shaved to look good.
Some do things on their bodies not to imitate others.

.
In ASIA (im not sure about those who grew up in Western cultures), there are some people who dye their hair red and blonde (more sport the red than blonde color) also wear brown or blue contact lenses. These people find the color cute and different and the majority do it as a "fashion accessory" to stand out from the crowd who mostly have darker features moreso than wishing to have or preferring red or blonde hair/ blue eyes. It looks unnatural to them, their natural color compliments their Asian looks better.

But the majority of Asians do not dye their hair red or blonde (many more dye it color brown as it looks more natural but still the majority go with their natural hair color) nor wear colored contacts.
The coveted ideal hair in Asia is "shiny silky lustrous dark hair". You can see it in shampoo commercials. There are way many more brunette White women who dye their hair blonde, it's prevalent, and many of them prefer the blonde color than their natural hair color.

Many Asians are intrigued with foreigners. Many are very friendly to foreigners esp. Whites, many find Whites goodlooking but it doenst necessarily mean they find Whites better looking than Asians. The majority prefer the Asian beauty. Many others dont even find Whites attractive, same way many Whites dont find Asians attractive. Different standards of beauty.
Exceptions is some Southeast Asian countries who have been colonized, thus, many have colonial mentality.

Funny thing is, some Westerns are taking advantage of the plastic surgery stereotype about East Asians trying to discredit East Asians. Saying most have plastic surgery.

You will see some Whites will post pictures of beautiful Asian women claiming she had plastic surgeries or look ugly without make up. Will post a "before" pic that looks far from her at all. You can tell it's not same person as different skull structure and the looks is very different. Seems like because Westerns find Asians look all the same they think they can fool people to beleive it's same person. There are a number of peole with plastic surgery, there are many who do not have. Many pretty ASians are natural beauties esp. in China as well in Japan and Souhteast Asian countries. Their skin is fresh and clear with no visible pores. Mnay look best with no or little make up. Many actually look odd with make up. Off course, there are a number of pretty asian women who look not good w/o make up too.

The features of White women and the skin quality and tone get enhanced much better with make up as the coloring make their features stand out more when w/o the face look kinda bland and you can see the pores and some blemishes. But off course, there are also naturally good-looking.

I.Q. tests consistently show East Asians have the highest I.Q. They say Asians being smart is not merely as a result of emphasis on education by the culture as some scientists concluded race differences in I.Q. is 50% genetics.

Scientific studies conducted by White Westerns show Whites have bigger brain size/cranial capacity/higher number of cortical neurons than Blacks but East Asians (Mongoloids) have bigger brain size/cranial capacity/higher number of cortical neurons than Whites. This applies to the respective women of their races as well.

I also read some scientific study articles in the past stating half Asian/half White people have higher I.Q. and healthier than full-blooded Whites.

There are popular well-established scientific findings by a large body of scientific studies showing and proving that East Asians have the biggest brain size/cranial capacity/highest number of cortical neurons, therefore, the highest I.Q. This is just one of the highly acclaimed scientific study on Race, Evolution, and Behavior. It's by White scientist JP Rushton.

East Asians are the most higly evolved according to some scientific studies.

"John Rushton explains this by saying that according to Human Evolution, East Asians are the most highly evolved race hence the highest brain power and smaller body/Highest Longetivity and lowest interests in sex and fertility (pretty much saying that the less evolved, the more aggressive and more interested in sex).

According to his book, Europeans are the 'intermediates' between the Blacks and East Asians."

Top 5 most intelligent nations on earth are:
According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations , a research paper written by Dr Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland, East Asians are the most intelligent ethnic group on the planet.

However, the most intelligent people in the world are indeed the Mainland Chinese... in Shanghai and Beijing with an average IQ of 109.4
However, this was scaled down to 100 taking into account poor rural areas in China and possibly the non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities in China.

After the East Asians, the other higher ranking IQ nations include Austria,Germany,Italy and the Netherlands which all average 102.

John Phillipe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada reiniforces the concept of East Asian IQ Superiority by a book written called Race, Evolution And behavior: A Life History Perspective.

According to this book, the Mongaloids (East Asians),Whites and blacks are compared to each other using biological comparisons.
According to his research, East Asians have highest cranial capacities,highest numbers of corticol neutrons,Highest IQ scores,Highest Lifespans,Lowest aggression and lowest sexual interest and fertility.

John Rushton explains this by saying that according to Human Evolution, East Asians are the most highly evolved race hence the highest brain power and smaller body/Highest Longetivity and lowest interests in sex and fertility (pretty much saying that the less evolved, the more aggressive and more interested in sex).

According to his book, Europeans are the 'intermediates' between the Blacks and East Asians.

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

Regarding Whites has produced more geniuses, more inventions, discoveries.

The Chinese had many great contibutions to human civilizations as well, but yes surely, the Whites have many many more, but I highly believe, one of the reasons the Chinese wasn't able to contribute as much as the Western Whites is due to in the past having different philoshopies in life, valueing different things/values from the Westerns, more concerned with philosophical and spiritual ideologies than conquering the material world, no wonder China had a lot of spiritual sages than material world geniuses (wisdom is intellectual virtue the sages are spiritual genius they are more advance or enlightened in moral aspect);

; the Japanese share more Western values and an aggressive warrior culture like Westerns, look at them, they were able to explore, discover, and invent things as well like the Westerns did. They have applied much of their intelligence to the material world and became second largest economy. Their technology is very advance, and they are futuristic moreso than Westerns. But still, the Japanese have maintained many good admirable human values. I think the Japanese are so far the overall superior. But Chinese century is yet to see.

A viewpoint about this issue from other intellectual Whites and East Asians which i agree with:

"Of course we spend far too much time here haggling over mere IQ points, which ignore the all important quality of creativity- thinking outside the box if you please. White folks trounce every other group in their ability to smash convention and make something new out of the rubble. Whosoever would be a genius must be a rebel. This is one hump smart Asians just can't get over."

"Asian culture has been deeply influenced by Confucio's teachings that praise conformism, hierarchy and obedience. I wonder if it's a genetic asian passive and conformist psychology that has made possible for Confucian philosophy to spread among them."

" I think you're absolutely correct there. Westerners often get interested in the passive Eastern philosophies/religions, but the Asian--East Asian--mind is much better suited to those things. Conformity is respected so much because it comes natural to them."

"Well, we do have higher average IQ's than White people- but I do admit we can get retards in our race, but less retards than other races.

I wouldent say that East-Asian IQ cuts off at a certain level, there are EA genius's. But I think the history of White people, whose emphasis on the self instead of the collective coupled with their emphasis on liberty and self-expression has made them much more innovative and creative.

EA's did not have the same developmental progress as European people. Our creativity was hindered and blocked due to our narrow-minded world view and highly vertical command structures.

It's good that this is starting to change, though."

Genius is tapping your creative potential.
The Chinese can and will contribute much as well to the world advancement in the future. Much of the discoveries and inventions of the future will come from Chinese geniuses. China is producing a lot of intellectuals. Considering Chinese is the most number of people in the world and very many are more intelligent so there can be more genius Chinese than Whites in the future. East Asians are very success driven and excel in academic and professions, they are the future. 21st Century is Chinese Century while 20th Century is American Century. The time for the Chinese is coming. We will see the performance of the Chinese compared to Whites by then and prove if Whites are really superior or it's the Chinese. Yes at the moment they copy a lot of Western inventions, but don't forget they're catching up, that's part of the processes, (if there were many inventions present already the tendency is to copy and/or innovate; Whites would be doing the same thing if the situation is reversed) BUT mankind has much much more to discover, to invent to master the Earth or the Universe so i would bet the future civilization will get far more advance than it is today.

Another thing, now that it's globalization age, many people of different races can now have more or less same opportunities for growth. In the U.S., a melting pot nation, East Asians are outperforming Whites in many more areas.

Not to mention, East Asians, in general, (generally speaking- i made that clear) are the most disciplined, hard working, respectful, self-restraint, well-mannered/civilized group. Some would say it's more a cultural attribute and behavioral orientation than a thing inherent to race per se. But then why East Asian cultures, the race, place more emphasis on good manners, discipline, hard work, many good values moreso than the White race and Blakc people placed the least emphasis on good vaues.

Statistical studies show East Asians have the lowest rate of diseases, crime, psychopath tendencies, lowest body odor (those asians who have smell usually the foreigners describe they smell food from the kitchen or restaurant lol).the Japanese they live the longest . Many say East asians are the most hygienic people, dress up the most neatly, have healthier diet (generally not getting fat due to gene and diet), many Asians have spiritual awareness doing yoga, tai chi, and meditiation as part of living. Many also, know martials arts.

Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Britain each were once the superior civilization of their time. America had it's time as well, it's declining now. Each group thought they were the GREATEST when they were the dominant at the time, beleived they were superior and invincible and no others can overtake them.

Chinese Century is yet to see. When that happens we can see and compare the performance of the Chinese compared to past GREATS.

"China's surge in progress could soon overwhelm the US, say experts
Continue reading the main story

China is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 - far earlier than expected.
That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK's national science academy.
The country that invented the compass, gunpowder, paper and printing is set for a globally important comeback.
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.

The study, Knowledge, Networks and Nations, charts the challenge to the traditional dominance of the United States, Europe and Japan.
The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier.
In 1996, the first year of the analysis, the US published 292,513 papers - more than 10 times China's 25,474.
By 2008, the US total had increased very slightly to 316,317 while China's had surged more than seven-fold to 184,080.
Previous estimates for the rate of expansion of Chinese science had suggested that China might overtake the US sometime after 2020.
But this study shows that China, after displacing the UK as the world's second leading producer of research, could go on to overtake America in as little as two years' time.
"Projections vary, but a simple linear interpretation of Elsevier's publishing data suggests that this could take place as early as 2013," it says.

Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, chair of the report, said he was "not surprised" by this increase because of China's massive boost to investment in R&D.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
"I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent."
The report stresses that American research output will not decline in absolute terms and raises the possibility of countries like Japan and France rising to meet the Chinese challenge.
"But the potential for China to match American output in terms of sheer numbers in the near to medium term is clear."

Quality questions

The authors describe "dramatic" changes in the global scientific landscape and warn that this has implications for a nation's competitiveness.
According to the report, "The scientific league tables are not just about prestige - they are a barometer of a country's ability to compete on the world stage".
Along with the growth of the Chinese economy, this is yet another indicator of China's extraordinarily rapid rise as a global force.
However the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
"It will take some time for the absolute output of emerging nations to challenge the rate at which this research is referenced by the international scientific community."
The UK's scientific papers are still the second most-cited in the world, after the US.
Dr Cong Cao, associate professor at Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, agrees with the assessment that the quantity of China's science is yet not matched by its quality.
A sociologist originally from Shanghai, Dr Cao told the BBC: "There are many millions of graduates but they are mandated to publish so the numbers are high.
"It will take many years for some of the research to catch up to Western standards."
As to China's motivation, Dr Cao believes that there is a determination not to be dependent on foreign know-how - and to reclaim the country's historic role as a global leader in technology.

"China had led the World many times during it's history. Stands to reason they would lead again at some time."

Lastly, the Asian women with good bodies obviously have the softest, smoothest shaped, most supple, PROPORTIONATE bodies and with good waist-to-hip ratio. very femininely structured. even the ones with average bodies have softer and proportionate bodies.

White women even the most feminine ones the bodies and head/skull the structure outline are not AS smoothly, delicately, neatly, and finely designed as that of the fine Asian women's.
The shape of the sexiest White women's bodies is not as smoothly and softly and delicately structured (with slight unsmooth edges i.e. in the hip bone area, shoulders that the body looked quite have hard bumps not so smooth total body outline compared to sexiest Asian bodies. (some of the sexiest asian bodies ive seen are of the regular celebrities and regular women, ASian car import models/ lingeri models/porn stars/etc; most of the car import/lingerir/porn models are not included in that myspace site but they're easy to search online)

The feminine asians are totally feminine.
Many White women have bigger heads and jawline/chin.
Asian women have smaller and more femininely delicate fine hands/fingers and feet. Less body hair.
The ones with great legs do have finely shaped most feminine sexy legs and no need to shave.
Their height is 5-5'7, mostly.

Many Southeast Asians have nice round asses and some East Asians too.
Many Asian women have A cup breasts, quite a lot have B cups and C cups, and a few have D cups. Many more White women have bigger breasts but the breast of Asian women are typically very round shape, firm and perky (not sloppy or droopy). Its uncommon for White womne with NATURAL breasts to have very round and perky breasts.

True beauty/superiority of beauty is not just eye candy, healthier gene and more feminine features are also determining factors. Many Asian women have naturally plump fuller lips (no need for collagen injection), smaller finely shaped nose but not flat , wide spaced eyes, and the majority have high cheekbones, softer smaller jawline/chin, narrower shoulders/rib cage, smoother facial and body structure outline, great hair and skin, youthfulness- all attributes of ideal female beauty in science of beauty studies and universally accepted ideal features for females. Most do not get fat and very many age gracefully. Quite a lot look like in 20's in 30's and in 30's in 40's.

As people age the lips get thinner (as well as hair strands) so fuller lips is a mark of youthfulness and obviously it's prettier and more sensual.
With the eyes, as we age, the top skin gets sunken so deep eye socket give older appearance and it's rough (not delicate) quite masculin looking. Whites have deeper top skin,a deep eye socket, but some Nordics have flat top flesh just like most of the Asians.

That myspace site are just some samples of beautiful Asian women. There are many many more and more beautiful in each Asian country (from Southeast to East Asia) and can search online. But that myspace site has good samples.

Markus: Emily is Swedish and clearly referring to Southern Europeans when talking about Latins. Nose bridges alone are not very useful in comparing feminine appearance. In addition, the lower nose bridges of Finnish individuals (compared to Norwegians) is not because of part Asian ancestry; some indirect evidence here:

The above citations are not about the nose bridge but, in a nutshell, there is a trend for faces to become broader and for the nose bridge to become less prominent as one goes east in northern Europe, but this trend is part of natural geographic variation among white Northern Europeans; the ones with significant Asian mixture do not look Nordic and can be separated from the Nordic people who are naturally part of the geographic trend.

Well, in discussion like comparison of beauty of races of women I had to address not only beauty/femininity but also genetics, behaviour, culture, and intelligence backed up by scientific studies as I know many people (altho many are becoming educated in this modern age) have this misconception about the superiority of the Nordics- the blonde hair and blue eyes- that in their brainwashed thinking this type of beauty is the ultimate and even other races are objectively as beautiful or more beautiful they are blinded they couldn't see the true beauty as they have misconception these women including the Asian women are inferior, when it's the contrary Asian women have many more superior racial qualities. That's why some Whites will say "White women are the most beautiful and will always be the most beautiful". That's a brainwashed mindset.

The fact is, in female beauty studies, most of the universally accepted ideal female features are physical traits of Asian women except the big eyes. But many people also find the mysterious misty starry Asian slanty and almond eyes beautiful and sexy and prefer it to big eyes. Many people say Asians have great thick silky dark hair and great fair and tan skin.

When you compare the beautiful women of different races, the Asian beauty is the most different- the bone structure, the body shape, the skin, the eye shape, the height, the looks, and even the carriage and mannerism the grace and elegance and femininity of Southeast and East Asian women are most different. The sensuality of beauty is different too. Other races have closer similarities in features, looks, bearing. The blonde blue eyed just have different hair/eye coloring.

(that myspace site that's my friend's account and did not include the most sensual lovely Asian beauties; i saw better looking ones online)

In my observation, the best looking Nordics possess somewhat ASian features- small feminine nose, fuller lips, high cheekbones, smaller oval head/jawline/chin. Ive read a few times online even from 1 Swedish woman saying Nordics are very beautiful because they have those features which are a result of Mongoloid admixture.

About Blonde idealism:

Many whites and very many people around the world prefer dark hair and dark eyes as majority of people in the world have dark hair/eyes. But there are also many who prefer blonde hair/blue eyes.

Many factors for Blonde idealism of many people.

-blonde hair is rare, pretty, feminine. (it's been called "baby hair" or "corn hair" by other cultures)
;blue eyes are beautiful
-Western culture is the current SUPER POWER and THIS has great impact on the PERCEIVED HIGHER VALUE of the people/culture of the race. They become the standards for many people.

For example, Jesssica Alba is a good-lookign woman (she looks more Mexican than White), but her being part Mexican some poeple who idealized Whites can perceive her as less beautiful than a goodlookingn white girl cos they think she has less racial value. But Alba is considered by very many poeple around the world as moer beautiful than a good looking White blonde girl they can see pass her ethnic background and see her true beauty. Those who idealize blondes cannot see her as better looking .

-the white culture/media influnce with some brainwashing throughtout history that the blonde hair/blue eyes are superior. this belief is strong in many people whose countries have been colonized by the Europeans (the colonial mentality is so deeply ingrained that even the average and below average they think are above average/good-looking), don't have strong cultural identity, peolple in the poor countries who find Whites superior as they have more progressive civilization.

-i beleive there are higher percentage of above average looking in the White race than other races so many people perceive the White race as better looking. but personally, the average Whites i dont find better looking than the average of other races. the average looking asians look more neat (good & normal looking skin and good hair) and smart looking, to me. that's just how i personally view it.

-white images are all aroudn the world being the dominant culture, the best looking of the White race have been seen by the world, the best looking ones of other races esp. the Asian race most people of the world have neven seen yet so they thoguht whites are the best looking.

Since the globalization age has arrive and in this modern age many people have come to know White race is not a superior race, many poeple have seen some of the goodlooking people of other races besides whites and find them as attractive or even more atractve than Whites.
Very many Whites and people of other races have come to know there are beautiful people in all races and got personal preferences and White beauty is no longer the ideal of beauty for many who used to idealized Whites in the past.
Time has changed.

Reality check: I hope you read enough of this site to realize that the women that I am using as examples of women much more attractive to the majority, on average, than high-fashion models are not the epitome of beauty. I have talked a lot about problems with obtaining enough illustrative examples of women who would be found extremely attractive by the majority. You have left your comments in response to some women who I removed from the attractive women section... because I need to come up with better examples. If you cannot be bothered to understand this then this is not the right site for you to spend your time browsing.

My name is...: The discussion on the attractiveness of Asians is all over this site. I do not have the time to pinpoint the places where it has been discussed or summarize it here for you. Read around or search for this information if you are interested in this topic.

What is the point of leaving numerous comments on group differences in intelligence and how the Chinese are going to take over science and the economy? This site does not deal with these topics. Post them at sites where these topics are discussed; you might even have fun.

Regarding the statements that are relevant to this site, it is interesting that you have stated that white women have larger heads than [shorter] Asian women when one person whom you extensively cited above, John/Jean P. Rushton, went over the studies that compared head (skull) size across populations in a literature review [which you have summarized], finding that Northeast Asians have the largest ones on average.

You have made other comments such as Asian women have “smaller finely shaped nose but not flat” and “Many White women have bigger heads and jawline/chin.” Nasal bones do not tend to be flattened in East Asian women? Maybe you are delusional but if common observation does not suffice, you may want to look at some published studies showing that compared to white women, East Asian women, who are shorter, on average have larger faces, larger cheekbones, wider noses (fleshy part) and larger jaws/chins/ teeth:

It is also interesting to read you dispelling some myths about attractive Asian women when you are the one who posted a white [Swedish] girl (Frida Gustavsson) and some part-white women as examples of attractive Asian women.

High cheekbones is a beautiful face structure defining feature for both males and females. It's universally considered one of the typical traits of the most beautiful people of all races.
Most of the goodlooking men and women around the world have high cheekbones. It's typica feature of goodlooking people. This feature is mostly East Asian. Even their average and uglies have this feature.
Wide spaced eyes is a trait said to give a youhtful facial appearance to females. It's considered a beautiful female trait. Some of the most goodlooking Whites possess this too esp. the Nordics.
----

Most Filipinos are full blooded Malays. Malays are classified as genetically different from Negritos/Australoids/Black people. Far different genetics.
The climate here in the Philippines is tropical hot and life is hard with poor nutrition that's why many Malays are brown skinned and have certain look and not because of Negrito blood.
I' ve read the vast majority of Malays did not mix with the Negritos. There's segregation between the two ethnics/cultures.
Only some have admixture of Negrito blood. Negritos were the first inhabitants of the Philippines, just like the Australoids were the first inhabitants of Australia. They were a tiny ethnic tribe, isolated in few provinces, in mountains. Today, the Negritos are in danger of going extinct.

Some Filipinos are full blooded Chinese. Many others are mixture of Malay/Chinese/Spanish or Malay/Chinese or Malay/Spanish, some mix of Japanese/American or Malay/Indian.
Those are the ethnic groups that mostly intermingled, even a Filipino friend told me that.

And the vast majority of Asians (even Thais) are real females. The tranny are tiny tiny tiny TINY percentage. In Thailand, it's a gross stereotype that applies only to very tiny number of the population. and can be considered almost non-existent in the rest of Asian countries as theyre extremely rare.

I've seen many of the best looking celebrity and regular European women the Scandinavians esp. Swedish (lots of pics online of regular Swedish girls in clubs/streets/football game/etc saying these are the typical hot Swedish girls),, the Polish and other Slavics, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Irish,
Croats, almost all European countries their hot women in Youtube videos and many other media). They're generally nice-looking, some very beautiful, but honestly, no one i find very attractive and irresistible or to be the ideal feminine beauty or almost flawless. I find the Asian type of beauty more sensual and attractive. The gorgeous Asian women are almost perfect from head to toe. I prefer the ones who look lady or womanly, not the girly types of Asians. There are a lot also of the former, both in Southeast Asia and East Asia.

I was making the beauty/features comparisons between the beautiful Asians and Whites.
Compare the features (head/jawline/chin, nose, lips) the pretty asian women have smaller and more fine ones
to pretty White women particularly the Nordics.

The thumbnail pic was small i thought she (Frida girl) was Asian.

Some may have White admixture (like some may have 15% european mixture) but the Asian genes are dominant that's why most of their features are ASian traits and they obviously look mostly Asiatic- Asian beauty type.

I find the best looking Whites particulrly the Nordics and Slavics (esp. Russians) to have Asiatic admixture. Their beauty is softer more feminine than typical Europeans.

Nordics have larger skulls and broader shoulders/bodies. In proportion to their smaller body size the North-East Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Chinese) have the largest skulls.

The brain size vs. IQ correlation confuses people because they don't realize it's a proportional measurement.

In other words, brain size in proportion to body mass is the determining factor in raw processing power. Otherwise sperm whales would be running the planet (quite a trick without hands) because they win first place for sheer brain size.

Humans posess the largest brains in proportion to their body mass and caucasians have a proportionally larger brain than Blacks. Asians have the largest brain size to body mass and correspondingly higher IQ scores.

This relationship also extends to metabolic efficiency. Small mammals like mice posess brains that consume about 2% of the animal's total metabolic energy, while humans have brains that burn 20%. More neurons = more calories = more processing power.

My posts about light genes/dark genes have scientific basis.
True, someone has said "blue eyes is the color of the sky, blond hair is the color of the sun.Brown is the color of the Earth. Both has it's place in the cosmos but one is high, the other is low". However, that notion of superiority or being higher form as they resemble the high sky and the sun is purely "romanticism" and no essence of truth. As well a narrow-minded shallow perception of the Cosmos. In medical sense, the light genes of the Europeans are not superior at all, in fact, quite inferior. Read and analyze well my posts above regarding genetics. The idea angels have blue eyes and blonde hair are mere illusion or fantasy has no reality basis. Nobody ever seen an angel, there's no even proof they exist. And the very feminine more delicate Asians are angelic too - from head to toe.

My name is...: Nobody here is saying that blond hair or blue eyes or white skin are superior. So please stop trying to debunk these notions.

Again, you have not properly read the review you cited. Rushton did not report head size after adjusting for body size. Why would he do this? Absolute size matters to his argument. He reported that Northeast Asians have the largest heads, period. If one adjusts for body size, then these Asian heads would be even larger in comparison.

You also did not properly read an article I cited. Even attractive Asian women had larger faces (including chins/jaws) and wider noses (fleshy part) than average white women, but the differences were reduced compared to the average Asian woman: http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/content/6/4/244.long

In other words, the faces of attractive Asian women are shifted toward the European average. On the other hand, the faces of attractive white women are shifted away from East Asian norms and toward Northern European norms: http://www.femininebeauty.info/jaw-shape-preference (this should show how absurd your notion is that attractive Nordic women are more like Asians).

When it comes to comparisons between Whites, i find the olive skin tone of Italians more appealing than the Nordic pasty pale skin. It's normal looking. Why plenty of pale Whites like the Nordics get a tan? Usually they look better with some coloring as their light skin, I'm sorry this sounds harsh but,it looks quite abnormal, freakish, sickly, ghostly or pig-skinned. Just making a point, like you can say Asian eyes are freak alien looking. The natural fair skin of Asians look normal and great tone and quality while the natural tan look very sensual.

Just check out those hundreds of pics of beautiful Asian women (and search many many more online) and compare their features to beautiful White women including the Nordics. You can easily see which race has more feminine features.

Also, the beautiful Asian women possess the typical Asian traits (shorter nose, fuller lips, slanty and almond shaped eyes, wide spaced eyes, thicker hair strands, great skin tone and quality, hihg cheekbones, smaller jaw/chin compred to Whites) just finer versions, but the versions certainly did not get closer to typical White traits which are more masculine features.
Another thing, Do these attractive Asians look more Whites or Asians?
The point is, they look ASIAN with asian traits. They are NOT European beauty.

I think because many of the Nordics have fleshy soft face and lower cheekbones (in comparison to Asian faces which have more uplifted/perky look) the bigger and harder jawline and chin of the Nordics seem to appear less pronounced or noticeable.

Fact is, Asian heads come in different sizes. Many have big heads compared to their narrow bodies, many have small heads esp. the Chinese proportionate to their small body frame others slightly bigger than their small body frames (there are alos many Chinese with big heads). I've been to different Asian countries(im currently in the Philippines) and Ive seen different Asian head sizes.

My name is...: Your pictures show the same thing that the study shows: attractive East Asian women on average look less Asian than average Asian women, but you are too deluded to note this. Now, less Asian does not necessarily mean closer to white as it could be closer to sub-Saharan African, and it does not mean not Asian, but it is pretty obvious that the direction is toward white norms, which the study clearly shows, too.

You changed track and said that the matter would be different if Asians other than Koreans were used. Whereas a few comparisons would change, the overall picture would remain the same. Here is a study that compared some face dimensions of the Chinese to Americans’: http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/4/415.full

“Americans” is too vague and includes multiple ethnicities. So just compare the Chinese measurements with the White American ones in the study where Korean women were contrasted with white North American women. Again, the Chinese women have broader faces, wider jaws and wider noses (fleshy part), but this time the nasion-chin length was shorter. So the overall picture is not very different, but note that in both the Korean and Chinese comparisons, absolute face measurements are being reported. What if we take into account the shorter stature of the Asian women? Even larger faces!

And by the way, the comparison of white North American women and Korean women showed that the white women had lip thickness only 1 mm (a tenth of a centimeter) less than the Korean women’s (19.1 vs. 18.1 mm). So much for the lip issue as you have been presenting it.

Of course, Asian people have heads of different sizes, just as not all people in other populations have the same head size, but the fact remains that an author that you hold in high esteem, J. P. Rushton, has surveyed the literature on the topic and reported larger heads in Northeast Asians on average (even without adjusting for body size).

And then you write things like “the bigger and harder jawline and chin of the Nordics [compared to East Asian women]”! What is this? It is not only common observation that shows the reverse but also much published literature, that I have cited. Please do not trash comment space with poor arguments. Feel free to talk about Asian beauty at myspace or your own site. This is the wrong site for you to bother with.

the direction is towards White norms?
White typical features are: thinner lips, bony taller nose with more flesh at the tip, lower cheekbones, unclear pale skin that age fast, thinner/duller/weaker hair strands, deeper eye socket,
bony big head/pronounced bigger jawline/chin (compared to the MANY OTHER ASIANS with smaller skull ONLY), taller and bigger framed women, more matured looking compared to Asian women. I've read about this in the past an anthropology study article about comparison of racial features.

(The attractive Asians the features/overall looks/the beauty is alligned to typical Asian features and far from typical White features.)

The MOST FEMININE Whites esp. the most feminine Nordic types DO NOT possess many of those typical European features.
Many of their feminine features are similar to the features of feminine attractive asian women. Some may have mongoloid admixture, some may just be more feminine than typical Europeans.

In fact, some have slightly flat facial appearance just like most of the Malays/Filipinos/south and east asians- not deep top skin of the eyes/not deep eye socket, not bony tall nose/small nose (proportionate to the face so not rough looking), small heads/jawline/chin/MOUTH cave just like of the MANY ASIANS who have SMALL skulls (but still the head/jawline/chin of these group of asians are smaller than that of the whites with small skull; check out and google more those asians with small heads/delciate jawline/chin and find whites around same age with features as small/delicate as those, Whites are bigger boned to asians!), small hands/feet. Some of these Nordic and russian women (like Anna Kournikova type) look like blonde version of Filipinas.

C'mon just google online or visit Asian countries and you'll see many asians are smaller boned compared to Whites. This will be concluded.

Asians have the biggest heads as well as the smallest heads. Most Whites fall in between. You'll hear many whites say asians have small heads, others saying asians have big heads.
The ones with small heads,the head is proportional sized to their small body frame, and their bodies are smaller framed to Whites, so smaller heads!

Btw, aside from fleshy soft face, the light eyes/hair of the Nordics give them added appreance of looking soft.
Imagine those feminine Nordics with dark hair and you can see many are not more feminine than the brunette white women.

My name is...: If you are going to continue on insisting that white women typically/in comparison to East Asian women have “big head/pronounced bigger jawline/chin” when both common observation and published studies, which I have cited, show the reverse, or that there is something Asian looking about Nordic women who look feminine, then we are finished having any kind of discussion. You are welcome to believe what you like. Just do not describe your beliefs at this site.

Anyway Erik, I've a lengthy and comprehensive studies in the past about female beauty and differences of racial features as well as have ACTUALLY SEEN plenty PLENTY of different types of beauty in the world through travelling/t.v./internet. (who would have thought SOME of the best looking very feminine women in the world are Filipinas- the Malay/Chinese mix?; just to give exmaple there are many beauties around the world that most of the world are not aware of) .I'm wel aware of the fake vs. natural beauty too. I think I have explained my points already, if they wasn't clear or you do not agree with them, that's fine. This discussion is starting to go around in circles, nothing more to explain or argue. Ive done this beauty "debate" in the past, i understand there will be no agreement.
At the end of the day, beauty is personal preferences, and there's different reasons why we have developed our personal preference.

I'm just glad you are a fair administrator who let others opinions be heard. That shows you are open-minded and not really racist.
Well im not really racist either, I have many White friends, im just making arguments and points for the sake of discussion.

Erik,
You have once claimed in a previous response to some commentator of one of your articles here that you are attracted to women of different ethnicities however you didn't name any and I don't see any posts where you actually mention any.

So would you please name several nonwhite females that you find to be just as attractive as the white women you post as "attractive" on this website?

That's right Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q.s in the world, it's an ethnic subgroup, if you will check it out the study of Rushton pointed out the
I.Q. of the Ashkenazi Jews as well, i'm just going by which Race has the highest I.Q. as what the scientists are comparing.

Asians are multi-billions. The number of Asians you see in foreign countries i.e. Canada do not represent all Asians.
AS I said, by googling Asians or travelling to Asian countries will make this head size issue concluded.
Hint: Very many Asians have smaller slender body frame compared to most Whites. The Nordics with small heads have small slender body frame as well similar of that the Asians. The ones with broad shouders/big bony bodies have large heads.

Ok last time i'll argue this head issue. I think i made my argument clear.

Too many White women have big bony heads but because they usually have broader shoulders/bigger more bony frames i guess to many White observers it gives an appearance their heads not big. But to me as an Asian who are used to seeing very many asians with smaller heads/delicate jaws/chins that's proportional to their smaller frame it's apparent to me most White women have bigger skulls/broader or longer and harder bony jaws/strong solid chins (the stronger pronounced chin is typical to Nordics especially, it stand outs in their facial feature, kinda bony squarish or bony roundish shape).
Many whites have squarish manly jaws.
This is off course a comparison to the population of smaller boned Asian women.

You can find half Asian/half Whites online too. Compare a lot of these half Whites to the Asian women population with small head/delicate small jaw/chin, usually these half whites have bigger skulls/more pronounced jaw/chin similar to typical White skulls or in other cases their skulls are smaller or bigger.

(these images are drawn from real life actors/models same with the chinese females drawing video i linked above)
(this video i found has good compilation of goodlooking chinse males and i dont know the names of these celebrities so i cant find the real life pics). Only one male there i know it's the half Taiwanese/half Japanese actor Takeshi Kaneshiro.
You can google him.

They are not "effeminate". Youthful, neat features, perky/smart/sharp looking but with tenderness and refinement at the same time are the more appropriate descriptions of that type of male beauty.

Their features, the bone structures, the looks are masculine, just more refined not as big boned and as tall as many Europeans, but still not feminine. And as the scientific studies on human evolution states the smaller body frame is a good thing.

Some refined Nordic males fall into this same classification of male beauty.

"These painting/portraits are actual Asian celebrities in real life. The artists usually have the original reference picture and create a portrait version of it, sometimes adding more details, changing a few things such as lighting and colors, but they usually keep the same posture, features, and hair to have the resemblance.

If you're lucky, you will find the reference picture and the name of the star.

I did find some reference pictures from my﻿ own collection of portraits and posted a video."

Many of those males in the video are the Asians with natural bigger eyes (the almond shape eyes). I already addressed this issue about the 3 types of natural Asian eyes (the slanty shape, the almond shape, the slightly round shape) in some of my posts above.
Some of these males may have some White admixture, but many full blooded asians do have bigger eyes, just not as big as that of the round European eyes and quite a lot of males too have bony tall nose as you say very many asians have bony skull. Many asians too have white skin (different fair version to Europeans) but there are many more with yellow and tan coloring.

This myspace page has many full-blooded asians. Some may have European admixture (like 15-50% white blood) but the asian gene is dominant that's why their features are aligned to typical Asian traits ,not the typical White traits, and they look mostly Asiatic beauty.
They look closer to the full-blooded Asians.

Here some more samples of goodlooking Southeast and East asian women with different types of looks- all Asiatic looks some may have admixture of some foreign blood (sometimes it's a mixture of East and Southeast asians that give them their particular look) but still mostly asian features and beauty.

Filipina American Idol contestant Thia Megia has very feminine, neat, organized, poised, graceful, elegantly soft & gentle (not vulgar or outrageous or quite manly body language/moves) but very effective sexy dance moves compare to all other ethncities in this group dancce number (yes she has big head! small body frame; she's the short girl with black hair):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRxn73Uok4g&feature=related

(East asians bearing is very elegant and gentle while the Southeast Asians bearing are very graceful, charming, and poised.
Very many Asian women (i didtn say all) are ladylike and have matured character with inner calm and strength a good head on their shoulders with good direction in life and good personalities. Intelligence, character, maturity, personality, bearing are important part of true feminine beauty.)
Im not saying Asian women are perfect, off course they are not, but my point is, they have many good qualities.

there are many more gorgeous and sexy ones (Southeast and East asian types) a lot i saw in t.v. ,all over the internet and in everyday life in my travels, i dont know the names of these strangers. i find some goodlooking in youtube videos but the better ones are usually found by searching pictures in the internet/watching asian t.v. & movies/places where the goodlooking asians hang out and party. :)

the sexiest are the car import models, lingerie models, exotic glamour models, but i dont really like posting those types of pics as it's not respectful to Asian women. there are plenty of gorgoeus sexy asian women who are the more classy types as well. The majority of the women in Asian cultures are pretty conservative.

My personal favorite types of beauties are the beautiful sexy with curves
Chinese mostly the ones who look like a lady or womanly, the beautiful sexy Vietnamese/ Filipinas/Thais/Malaysians/ Koreans/some Hawaiians and Cambodians.
Not much into goodlooking Japanese they are very cute and strikingly beautiful but many look too young.

Five of the women in this set of pictures have pronounced jawline yet still look quite feminely attractive.